Orders

View Sectional Index

If the OIPC cannot settle a request for review or complaint by mediation, the issue can proceed to an inquiry. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Commissioner or delegate issues a legally binding Order that determines the outcome of the dispute. Orders are enforceable by a court of law, and are subject to judicial review by the BC Supreme Court.

Preparing to participate in a written inquiry with the OIPC? Check out our detailed Instructions for Written Inquiries guide.

How to use this table: Orders can be sorted by date, number and title -- click on the column heading to sort by that category. Use the drop-down menus to filter Orders by legislation type (FIPPA or PIPA) and year. Leading Cases contain extensive discussion of a specific section of the Act. 

Leading Case
Judicial Review
Summary
F25-54 Jul 7, 2025 Burnaby Hospital
The applicant requested from Burnaby Hospital records from her stay. Burnaby Hospital disclosed records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator upheld the decision of Burnaby Hospital and required it to withhold the information under s. 22(1). The applicant requested from Burnaby Hospital records from her stay. Burnaby Hospital disclosed records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator upheld the decision of Burnaby Hospital and required it to withhold the information under s. 22(1).
F25-53 Jun 30, 2025 Ministry of Attorney General
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records regarding a criminal matter. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) withheld the records in their entirety under ss. 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The Ministry declined to produce the responsive record for the purposes of OIPC review. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the record to the OIPC so it can decide whether ss. 15(1)(g), 16(1)(b), or 22(1) apply. An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records regarding a criminal matter. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) withheld the records in their entirety under ss. 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The Ministry declined to produce the responsive record for the purposes of OIPC review. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the record to the OIPC so it can decide whether ss. 15(1)(g), 16(1)(b), or 22(1) apply.
F25-52 Jun 26, 2025 City of North Vancouver
An individual (applicant) asked the City of North Vancouver (City) for access to records concerning a project related to road safety in the City. The City provided records responsive to the access request but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under s. 13(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.An individual (applicant) asked the City of North Vancouver (City) for access to records concerning a project related to road safety in the City. The City provided records responsive to the access request but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under s. 13(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
F25-51 Jun 24, 2025 City of White Rock
A third party requested a review of the public body’s decision to disclose records in response to an applicant’s access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The third party asserted the public body must refuse to disclose information in the records under s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) applied to some, but not all, of the information in dispute and ordered the public body to disclose the information in dispute that was not subject to s. 21(1) to the applicant.A third party requested a review of the public body’s decision to disclose records in response to an applicant’s access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The third party asserted the public body must refuse to disclose information in the records under s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) applied to some, but not all, of the information in dispute and ordered the public body to disclose the information in dispute that was not subject to s. 21(1) to the applicant.
F25-50 Jun 23, 2025 Ministry of Transportation and Transit
An applicant asked for records from the Ministry of Transportation and Transit (Ministry) related to the subdivision decision-making process. The Ministry gave the applicant access to some information but withheld other information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to withhold all the information in dispute under s. 14 and some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) but was not authorized to withhold any of the information in dispute under s. 16(1)(b). The adjudicator required the Ministry to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized to withhold. An applicant asked for records from the Ministry of Transportation and Transit (Ministry) related to the subdivision decision-making process. The Ministry gave the applicant access to some information but withheld other information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to withhold all the information in dispute under s. 14 and some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) but was not authorized to withhold any of the information in dispute under s. 16(1)(b). The adjudicator required the Ministry to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized to withhold.
F25-49 Jun 23, 2025 BC Housing
BC Housing requested authorization to disregard outstanding and future requests from the respondent under s. 43(a) and (c)(ii) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that BC Housing had not established that the requests were frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(a) or repetitious or systematic under s. 43(c)(ii). The adjudicator declined to grant BC Housing authorization to disregard outstanding and future requests.BC Housing requested authorization to disregard outstanding and future requests from the respondent under s. 43(a) and (c)(ii) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that BC Housing had not established that the requests were frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(a) or repetitious or systematic under s. 43(c)(ii). The adjudicator declined to grant BC Housing authorization to disregard outstanding and future requests.
F25-48 Jun 19, 2025 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
An individual (the applicant) asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (the College) for access to records related to a complaint about a physician. The College provided responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information from them under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 22(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and other provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator held that the College was not authorized to withhold the information at issue under s. 13(1) and confirmed the College’s decision under ss. 14 and 22(1) in part. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13(1), 14 or 22(1). An individual (the applicant) asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (the College) for access to records related to a complaint about a physician. The College provided responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information from them under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 22(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) and other provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator held that the College was not authorized to withhold the information at issue under s. 13(1) and confirmed the College’s decision under ss. 14 and 22(1) in part. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13(1), 14 or 22(1).
F25-47 Jun 19, 2025 Architectural Institute of British Columbia
An engineering firm requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to various records from the Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC). AIBC applied, under ss. 43(a), (b), and (c)(i) of FIPPA, for authorization to disregard the request on the basis that the request is vexatious, that the respondent can access the records from another source, and that responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with AIBC’s operations because it is an excessively broad request. The adjudicator determined that the respondent’s request was excessively broad and that responding to it would unreasonably interfere with AIBC’s operations. On this basis, the adjudicator authorized AIBC to disregard the respondent’s access request and authorized AIBC to disregard any request from the respondent exceeding one request at a time for a period of two years.An engineering firm requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to various records from the Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC). AIBC applied, under ss. 43(a), (b), and (c)(i) of FIPPA, for authorization to disregard the request on the basis that the request is vexatious, that the respondent can access the records from another source, and that responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with AIBC’s operations because it is an excessively broad request. The adjudicator determined that the respondent’s request was excessively broad and that responding to it would unreasonably interfere with AIBC’s operations. On this basis, the adjudicator authorized AIBC to disregard the respondent’s access request and authorized AIBC to disregard any request from the respondent exceeding one request at a time for a period of two years.
F25-46 Jun 16, 2025 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General
An applicant requested video footage (the Video) from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (the Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry withheld the entire Video, citing ss. 15(1) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), 15(2) (disclosure harmful to proper custody or supervision), 19(1) (disclosure harmful to individual safety), and 22(1) (disclosure would unreasonably invade a third party’s privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 15(1), 15(2), and 19(1) did not apply, but that s. 22(1) did apply to portions of the Video. The adjudicator also found that s. 25(1) (disclosure in the public interest) did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose to the applicant the portions of the Video it was not required to withhold.An applicant requested video footage (the Video) from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (the Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry withheld the entire Video, citing ss. 15(1) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), 15(2) (disclosure harmful to proper custody or supervision), 19(1) (disclosure harmful to individual safety), and 22(1) (disclosure would unreasonably invade a third party’s privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 15(1), 15(2), and 19(1) did not apply, but that s. 22(1) did apply to portions of the Video. The adjudicator also found that s. 25(1) (disclosure in the public interest) did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose to the applicant the portions of the Video it was not required to withhold.
F25-45 Jun 16, 2025 Workers' Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC)
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC) for access to records relating to a deceased worker (the deceased). WorkSafeBC provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information on the basis that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased or his adult children and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased or his adult children and that WorkSafeBC was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered WorkSafeBC to give the applicant access to the information it was not required to withhold. The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC) for access to records relating to a deceased worker (the deceased). WorkSafeBC provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information on the basis that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased or his adult children and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased or his adult children and that WorkSafeBC was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered WorkSafeBC to give the applicant access to the information it was not required to withhold.
F25-44 Jun 13, 2025 Board of Education of School District 73 (Kamloops/Thompson)
An individual requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the Board of Education of School District 73 (School District) to information about construction projects. The School District applied for authorization to disregard the request under s. 43 of FIPPA. The School District says the request is vexatious, excessively broad and repetitious or systematic and responding to it would unreasonably interfere with its operation. The adjudicator determined that the individual’s request was not vexatious, excessively broad, repetitious or systematic. The adjudicator declined to authorize the School District to disregard the individual’s access request.An individual requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the Board of Education of School District 73 (School District) to information about construction projects. The School District applied for authorization to disregard the request under s. 43 of FIPPA. The School District says the request is vexatious, excessively broad and repetitious or systematic and responding to it would unreasonably interfere with its operation. The adjudicator determined that the individual’s request was not vexatious, excessively broad, repetitious or systematic. The adjudicator declined to authorize the School District to disregard the individual’s access request.
F25-43 Jun 12, 2025 Thompson Rivers University
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner initiated and conducted a proceeding to determine whether an applicant’s use of FIPPA amounted to an abuse of process and, if it did, what remedy would be appropriate. The adjudicator determined that the applicant had engaged in an abuse of process and that six of his open files were included in this pattern of abuse. The adjudicator concluded it is appropriate to cancel these six files in order to remedy the applicant’s abuse of process. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner initiated and conducted a proceeding to determine whether an applicant’s use of FIPPA amounted to an abuse of process and, if it did, what remedy would be appropriate. The adjudicator determined that the applicant had engaged in an abuse of process and that six of his open files were included in this pattern of abuse. The adjudicator concluded it is appropriate to cancel these six files in order to remedy the applicant’s abuse of process.
F25-42 Jun 11, 2025 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General
An applicant requested, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), access to records from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Ministry). The Ministry provided some responsive records but withheld information from them, citing various sections of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(f) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) applied to the record withheld in its entirety. The adjudicator further found that s. 22(1) (disclosure would unreasonably invade a third party’s privacy) authorized the Ministry to withhold some, but not all the information in the other records. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose to the applicant the information it was not required to withhold.An applicant requested, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), access to records from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Ministry). The Ministry provided some responsive records but withheld information from them, citing various sections of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(f) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) applied to the record withheld in its entirety. The adjudicator further found that s. 22(1) (disclosure would unreasonably invade a third party’s privacy) authorized the Ministry to withhold some, but not all the information in the other records. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose to the applicant the information it was not required to withhold.
F25-41 Jun 3, 2025 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority
The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH) requested authorization to disregard a request from the respondent under s. 43(c)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that VCH had established that the request was excessively broad under s. 43(c)(i) and that responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The adjudicator provided VCH with authorization to disregard the request. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH) requested authorization to disregard a request from the respondent under s. 43(c)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that VCH had established that the request was excessively broad under s. 43(c)(i) and that responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The adjudicator provided VCH with authorization to disregard the request.
F25-40 Jun 2, 2025 City of Vancouver
A journalist (applicant) made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Vancouver (City) for access to all of a named City employee’s correspondence related to the FIFA World Cup sent and received during a specific time period. The City provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information from those records under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests), 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety), 21(1) (harm to a third party’s business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the City was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1) ,14, 15(1), 16(1), 17(1), 19(1), 21(1) and 22(1) but that much of the withheld information did not fall within the claimed exceptions. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose that information to the applicant. A journalist (applicant) made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Vancouver (City) for access to all of a named City employee’s correspondence related to the FIFA World Cup sent and received during a specific time period. The City provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information from those records under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests), 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety), 21(1) (harm to a third party’s business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the City was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1) ,14, 15(1), 16(1), 17(1), 19(1), 21(1) and 22(1) but that much of the withheld information did not fall within the claimed exceptions. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose that information to the applicant.
F25-39 May 27, 2025 Provincial Health Services Authority
The Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) requested authorization to disregard future requests from the respondent under s. 43(a) and (c)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that PHSA had established that the request was excessively broad, under s. 43(c)(i) and that responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The adjudicator provided PHSA with authorization to disregard the request. The Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) requested authorization to disregard future requests from the respondent under s. 43(a) and (c)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that PHSA had established that the request was excessively broad, under s. 43(c)(i) and that responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The adjudicator provided PHSA with authorization to disregard the request.
F25-38 May 22, 2025 Northern Health Authority
An applicant requested records from the Northern Health Authority (Northern Health) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Northern Health acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access request within the timeline required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found Northern Health had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of FIPPA and ordered it to respond to the applicant’s access request by a specified date.An applicant requested records from the Northern Health Authority (Northern Health) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Northern Health acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access request within the timeline required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found Northern Health had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of FIPPA and ordered it to respond to the applicant’s access request by a specified date.
F25-37 May 21, 2025 Northern Health Authority
An applicant requested records from the Northern Health Authority (Northern Health) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Northern Health acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access request within the timeline required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found Northern Health had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the applicant’s access request by a specified date.An applicant requested records from the Northern Health Authority (Northern Health) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Northern Health acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access request within the timeline required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found Northern Health had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the applicant’s access request by a specified date.
F25-36 May 21, 2025 Northern Health Authority
An applicant submitted three requests for records to the Northern Health Authority (Northern Health) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Northern Health acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access requests within the timeline required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found Northern Health had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the applicant’s access requests by a specified date.An applicant submitted three requests for records to the Northern Health Authority (Northern Health) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Northern Health acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access requests within the timeline required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found Northern Health had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the applicant’s access requests by a specified date.
F25-35 May 15, 2025 Ministry of Children and Family Development
An applicant requested access to information from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry). The Ministry provided records but withheld some information from them under various sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA), and the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). Regarding the provisions of FIPPA, the adjudicator found that: s. 3(3)(f) (records created by or for an officer of the Legislature) applied to exclude certain records from the scope of FIPPA; s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) authorized the Ministry to withhold information; and the Ministry was required to withhold certain information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party privacy). The adjudicator also found that ss. 77(1) (identity of a person who made a child protection report) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during an assessment or investigation) of the CFCSA applied to all the information the Ministry withheld under those sections. An applicant requested access to information from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry). The Ministry provided records but withheld some information from them under various sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA), and the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). Regarding the provisions of FIPPA, the adjudicator found that: s. 3(3)(f) (records created by or for an officer of the Legislature) applied to exclude certain records from the scope of FIPPA; s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) authorized the Ministry to withhold information; and the Ministry was required to withhold certain information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party privacy). The adjudicator also found that ss. 77(1) (identity of a person who made a child protection report) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during an assessment or investigation) of the CFCSA applied to all the information the Ministry withheld under those sections.
F25-34 May 12, 2025 City of Vancouver
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested access from the City of Vancouver (City) to information about a meeting between the City and its advisory panel. The City provided records to the applicant but withheld some information from those records under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the City is authorized to withhold most of the information at issue under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) but it is not authorized to withhold the rest of the information under s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests). The adjudicator ordered the City to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized to withhold. Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested access from the City of Vancouver (City) to information about a meeting between the City and its advisory panel. The City provided records to the applicant but withheld some information from those records under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the City is authorized to withhold most of the information at issue under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) but it is not authorized to withhold the rest of the information under s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests). The adjudicator ordered the City to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized to withhold.
F25-33 May 9, 2025 BC Financial Services Authority
An applicant requested that BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to material that a real estate licensee provided to BCFSA as part of an investigation. BCFSA refused to disclose the requested records under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that disclosing most of the disputed information would be an unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy under s. 22(1). Given that s. 22(1) applied, the adjudicator declined to consider whether s. 15 also applied. The adjudicator ordered BCFSA to provide the applicant access to the balance of the information in dispute.An applicant requested that BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to material that a real estate licensee provided to BCFSA as part of an investigation. BCFSA refused to disclose the requested records under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that disclosing most of the disputed information would be an unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy under s. 22(1). Given that s. 22(1) applied, the adjudicator declined to consider whether s. 15 also applied. The adjudicator ordered BCFSA to provide the applicant access to the balance of the information in dispute.
F25-32 May 6, 2025 Vancouver Police Department
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested information from the Vancouver Police Department (Department) regarding a complaint made against the applicant and the applicant’s interactions with the Department. The Department released some responsive information and records but withheld other information under ss. 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. At inquiry, the adjudicator found that the Department was authorized to withhold the information in dispute under s. 16(1)(b). However, the adjudicator also found that the department was not authorized or required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1) and ordered the Department to disclose that information to the applicant.Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested information from the Vancouver Police Department (Department) regarding a complaint made against the applicant and the applicant’s interactions with the Department. The Department released some responsive information and records but withheld other information under ss. 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. At inquiry, the adjudicator found that the Department was authorized to withhold the information in dispute under s. 16(1)(b). However, the adjudicator also found that the department was not authorized or required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1) and ordered the Department to disclose that information to the applicant.
F25-31 Apr 24, 2025 BC Transit
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to BC Transit’s new electronic fare payment system. BC Transit provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records by withholding some information from those records under s. 21(1) (harm to a third party’s business interests) of FIPPA. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner review BC Transit’s decision to refuse access under s. 21(1), and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. The adjudicator determined the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met and ordered BC Transit to disclose all the redacted information in the responsive records to the applicant.An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to BC Transit’s new electronic fare payment system. BC Transit provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records by withholding some information from those records under s. 21(1) (harm to a third party’s business interests) of FIPPA. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner review BC Transit’s decision to refuse access under s. 21(1), and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. The adjudicator determined the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met and ordered BC Transit to disclose all the redacted information in the responsive records to the applicant.
P25-06 Apr 14, 2025 Larco Investments Ltd.
Under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), an applicant requested that Larco Investments Ltd. (Larco) provide him with access to his personal information. Larco did not respond. The adjudicator found that Larco failed to meet its obligations under s. 29(1) (time limit for response) of PIPA and ordered Larco to respond to the request within one week, in compliance with the requirements of ss. 28 and 30 of PIPA. Under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), an applicant requested that Larco Investments Ltd. (Larco) provide him with access to his personal information. Larco did not respond. The adjudicator found that Larco failed to meet its obligations under s. 29(1) (time limit for response) of PIPA and ordered Larco to respond to the request within one week, in compliance with the requirements of ss. 28 and 30 of PIPA.
F25-30 Apr 11, 2025 Provincial Health Services Authority
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to information held by the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA). PHSA issued a fee estimate under s. 75 to process the request. The adjudicator found the estimate amount was not justified by the evidence and ordered PHSA, under a. 58(3)(c), to reduce the fee. An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to information held by the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA). PHSA issued a fee estimate under s. 75 to process the request. The adjudicator found the estimate amount was not justified by the evidence and ordered PHSA, under a. 58(3)(c), to reduce the fee.
F25-29 Apr 7, 2025 University of British Columbia
An applicant requested that the University of British Columbia (UBC) provide him with access to records containing his personal information. UBC withheld the information in dispute under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 14 did not apply to any information in dispute and ordered UBC to disclose the information withheld under that section to the applicant. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some, but not all, of the information in dispute and ordered UBC to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under those sections. The adjudicator also found that UBC had not properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1) and ordered UBC to reconsider its decision to withhold the information to which s. 13(1) applied. An applicant requested that the University of British Columbia (UBC) provide him with access to records containing his personal information. UBC withheld the information in dispute under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 14 did not apply to any information in dispute and ordered UBC to disclose the information withheld under that section to the applicant. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some, but not all, of the information in dispute and ordered UBC to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under those sections. The adjudicator also found that UBC had not properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1) and ordered UBC to reconsider its decision to withhold the information to which s. 13(1) applied.
F25-28 Apr 3, 2025 Fraser Health Authority
An applicant requested that the Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to her deceased mother’s (the Deceased) medical records. Fraser Health refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make the request on behalf of the Deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation (Regulation). Fraser Health also refused to disclose the records under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA and disputed the applicant’s claim that the public interest required disclosure under s. 25(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the Deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Regulation. The adjudicator further found that disclosing the Deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy under s. 22 but ordered Fraser Health to provide a summary under s. 22(5) of any information about the applicant that was supplied in confidence. Finally, the adjudicator determined that Fraser Health is not required to disclose the disputed information under s. 25(1).An applicant requested that the Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to her deceased mother’s (the Deceased) medical records. Fraser Health refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make the request on behalf of the Deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation (Regulation). Fraser Health also refused to disclose the records under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA and disputed the applicant’s claim that the public interest required disclosure under s. 25(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the Deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Regulation. The adjudicator further found that disclosing the Deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy under s. 22 but ordered Fraser Health to provide a summary under s. 22(5) of any information about the applicant that was supplied in confidence. Finally, the adjudicator determined that Fraser Health is not required to disclose the disputed information under s. 25(1).
F25-27 Mar 28, 2025 City of Prince Rupert
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records between the City of Prince Rupert (City) and a company that the City hired to replace its old water dam. The City provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records by withholding some information from those records under ss. 17(1)(d) (harm to financial or economic interests) and 21(1) (harm to a third party’s business interests) of FIPPA. The applicant asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the City’s decision, and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. The adjudicator determined the City was not authorized to withhold any of the information at issue under s. 17(1) and the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met. As a result, the adjudicator ordered the City to provide the applicant with access to all the information the City had redacted in the responsive records.An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records between the City of Prince Rupert (City) and a company that the City hired to replace its old water dam. The City provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records by withholding some information from those records under ss. 17(1)(d) (harm to financial or economic interests) and 21(1) (harm to a third party’s business interests) of FIPPA. The applicant asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the City’s decision, and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. The adjudicator determined the City was not authorized to withhold any of the information at issue under s. 17(1) and the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met. As a result, the adjudicator ordered the City to provide the applicant with access to all the information the City had redacted in the responsive records.
F25-26 Mar 27, 2025 District of Summerland
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the District of Summerland (District) for access to certain email communications sent or received by a number of named individuals. The District withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under s. 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a property or system) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(l) applied to the information in dispute and confirmed the District’s decision to withhold it. The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the District of Summerland (District) for access to certain email communications sent or received by a number of named individuals. The District withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under s. 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a property or system) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(l) applied to the information in dispute and confirmed the District’s decision to withhold it.
P25-05 Mar 26, 2025 Collingwood School
A lawyer, acting for a student and his parents, requested access to the student’s personal information held by Collingwood School (School). The School provided records but refused access to some information under ss. 23(3)(a) (solicitor-client privilege) and 23(4)(c) (personal information about another individual) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The adjudicator found the School was required to refuse to disclose most of the information in dispute under s. 23(4)(c). The adjudicator ordered the School to disclose a small portion of work product information that was simultaneously the student’s personal information.A lawyer, acting for a student and his parents, requested access to the student’s personal information held by Collingwood School (School). The School provided records but refused access to some information under ss. 23(3)(a) (solicitor-client privilege) and 23(4)(c) (personal information about another individual) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The adjudicator found the School was required to refuse to disclose most of the information in dispute under s. 23(4)(c). The adjudicator ordered the School to disclose a small portion of work product information that was simultaneously the student’s personal information.
F25-25 Mar 26, 2025 Thompson Rivers University
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested that Thompson Rivers University (TRU) provide her with access to records about a complaint made against her. TRU provided the applicant with the responsive records but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that TRU was authorized to withhold all of the information in dispute under s. 14 and authorized or required to withhold most of the information it withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1). The adjudicator ordered TRU to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested that Thompson Rivers University (TRU) provide her with access to records about a complaint made against her. TRU provided the applicant with the responsive records but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that TRU was authorized to withhold all of the information in dispute under s. 14 and authorized or required to withhold most of the information it withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1). The adjudicator ordered TRU to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
F25-24 Mar 26, 2025 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General
An applicant asked the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Ministry) for access to records about them in the custody and control of the Crime Victim Assistance Program. The Ministry took the position that some records were outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by operation of s. 3(3)(f) (records created for an officer of the Legislature) and withheld information from those and other records under various exceptions to disclosure under FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision under s. 3(3)(f) in full, its decision under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) in part, but held that it was not required to withhold any of the information at issue under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator also found that the Ministry had not properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1). As a result, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under ss. 13(1) and 22(1), and to reconsider its decision to withhold the information to which s. 13(1) applied, and in doing so to exercise its discretion upon proper considerations. An applicant asked the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Ministry) for access to records about them in the custody and control of the Crime Victim Assistance Program. The Ministry took the position that some records were outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by operation of s. 3(3)(f) (records created for an officer of the Legislature) and withheld information from those and other records under various exceptions to disclosure under FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision under s. 3(3)(f) in full, its decision under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) in part, but held that it was not required to withhold any of the information at issue under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator also found that the Ministry had not properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1). As a result, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under ss. 13(1) and 22(1), and to reconsider its decision to withhold the information to which s. 13(1) applied, and in doing so to exercise its discretion upon proper considerations.
P25-04 Mar 25, 2025 Surrey Fire Fighters' Association, Local 1271
An individual (applicant) requested access to their own personal information from the Surrey Fire Fighters’ Association, Local 1271 (Union) under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The Union responded by providing some information to the applicant but withheld other information under various sections of PIPA. The adjudicator found that all the information in dispute was either not the applicant’s own personal information or was otherwise exempt from disclosure. The adjudicator also found that the Union was required to further sever some documents and ordered the Union provide some additional information to the applicant.An individual (applicant) requested access to their own personal information from the Surrey Fire Fighters’ Association, Local 1271 (Union) under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The Union responded by providing some information to the applicant but withheld other information under various sections of PIPA. The adjudicator found that all the information in dispute was either not the applicant’s own personal information or was otherwise exempt from disclosure. The adjudicator also found that the Union was required to further sever some documents and ordered the Union provide some additional information to the applicant.
F25-23 Mar 25, 2025 Vancouver Police Department
An individual (Complainant) complained that the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) had collected his personal information in violation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The VPD argued that it did not collect the Complainant’s personal information, and, alternatively, that it was authorized to collect the Complainant’s personal information under ss. 26(a), (b), and (c) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the VPD had collected the Complainant’s personal information, and that this collection was not authorized under ss. 26(a), (b), or (c) of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered the VPD to stop collecting personal information in contravention of FIPPA. An individual (Complainant) complained that the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) had collected his personal information in violation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The VPD argued that it did not collect the Complainant’s personal information, and, alternatively, that it was authorized to collect the Complainant’s personal information under ss. 26(a), (b), and (c) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the VPD had collected the Complainant’s personal information, and that this collection was not authorized under ss. 26(a), (b), or (c) of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered the VPD to stop collecting personal information in contravention of FIPPA.
F25-22 Mar 25, 2025 University of British Columbia
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested access from the University of British Columbia (UBC) to information about herself. UBC provided records to the applicant but withheld some information from those records under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that UBC must refuse access to most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered UBC to give the applicant access to the information it was not required to refuse to disclose. Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested access from the University of British Columbia (UBC) to information about herself. UBC provided records to the applicant but withheld some information from those records under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that UBC must refuse access to most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered UBC to give the applicant access to the information it was not required to refuse to disclose.
F25-21 Mar 24, 2025 City of Prince Rupert
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to an agreement between the City of Prince Rupert (City) and a business engaged in construction contracting. After consulting with that business, the City provided the applicant with partial access to the requested record but withheld information in the agreement under s. 21(1) (harm to a third party’s business interests) of FIPPA. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner review the City’s decision to refuse access under s. 21(1). The adjudicator determined the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met and ordered the City to disclose all the redacted information to the applicant.An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to an agreement between the City of Prince Rupert (City) and a business engaged in construction contracting. After consulting with that business, the City provided the applicant with partial access to the requested record but withheld information in the agreement under s. 21(1) (harm to a third party’s business interests) of FIPPA. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner review the City’s decision to refuse access under s. 21(1). The adjudicator determined the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met and ordered the City to disclose all the redacted information to the applicant.
F25-20 Mar 13, 2025 City of Kamloops
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested access from the City of Kamloops (City) to communications between the City’s mayor and the City’s councillors. The City provided records to the applicant but withheld some information from those records under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to withhold all the information it refused to disclose under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), some of the information it refused to disclose under s. 13 (advice and recommendations) and none of the information it withheld under s. 16(1)(b) (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations). In addition, it was only required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The City was ordered to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested access from the City of Kamloops (City) to communications between the City’s mayor and the City’s councillors. The City provided records to the applicant but withheld some information from those records under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to withhold all the information it refused to disclose under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), some of the information it refused to disclose under s. 13 (advice and recommendations) and none of the information it withheld under s. 16(1)(b) (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations). In addition, it was only required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The City was ordered to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
F25-19 Mar 12, 2025 City of Burnaby
The City of Burnaby (City) applied for relief under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to disregard certain outstanding and future access requests made by the respondent. The adjudicator found that the requests were not vexatious under s. 43(a) and were not repetitious or systematic under s. 43(c)(ii). The adjudicator declined to provide the City with authorization to disregard the requests.The City of Burnaby (City) applied for relief under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to disregard certain outstanding and future access requests made by the respondent. The adjudicator found that the requests were not vexatious under s. 43(a) and were not repetitious or systematic under s. 43(c)(ii). The adjudicator declined to provide the City with authorization to disregard the requests.
F25-18 Mar 11, 2025 The Ministry of Health
An applicant requested records from the Ministry of Health (Ministry) pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access request within the time limit required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the Ministry had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of FIPPA and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified date.An applicant requested records from the Ministry of Health (Ministry) pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access request within the time limit required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the Ministry had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of FIPPA and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified date.
F25-17 Mar 11, 2025 Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) two applicants separately requested access to a report about the Site C Dam from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (Ministry). The Ministry refused the applicants access to the entire report, and both asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) to review the Ministry’s decision. The OIPC reviewed the first applicant’s request and ordered the Ministry to disclose some information from the report. In this matter, the Commissioner’s delegate determined that conducting the second applicant’s inquiry would constitute an abuse of process and cancelled the inquiry on that basis.Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) two applicants separately requested access to a report about the Site C Dam from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (Ministry). The Ministry refused the applicants access to the entire report, and both asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) to review the Ministry’s decision. The OIPC reviewed the first applicant’s request and ordered the Ministry to disclose some information from the report. In this matter, the Commissioner’s delegate determined that conducting the second applicant’s inquiry would constitute an abuse of process and cancelled the inquiry on that basis.
F25-16 Mar 6, 2025 Thompson Rivers University
This case is a court-ordered reconsideration of Order F22-48. The matter began when an applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for copies of email correspondence between a faculty member and an academic colleague living in a foreign country. TRU denied access under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA, on the grounds that the records were the research information of its faculty member and, in the alternative, that the records were not in its custody or under its control. Order F22-48 found that the records were in the custody of TRU and that it had failed to establish that s. 3(1)(e) applied. The order was subject to judicial review that required the Commissioner to reconsider the issue as to the application of s. 3(1)(e). During reconsideration, the adjudicator found that TRU applied s. 3(1)(e) correctly to some of the records but ordered it to continue processing the request for the records to which it had incorrectly applied s. 3(1)(e). Also, during reconsideration, the adjudicator considered a new issue raised by TRU, which was that it did not have custody or control of some of the records because they contained information of a purely personal nature. The adjudicator found that only some of those records contained information of a purely personal nature. He ordered TRU to continue processing the request for records that were not correctly characterized as containing information of a purely personal nature. In summary, the adjudicator ordered TRU to continue processing about 250 of the almost 6000 pages of records at issue. This case is a court-ordered reconsideration of Order F22-48. The matter began when an applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for copies of email correspondence between a faculty member and an academic colleague living in a foreign country. TRU denied access under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA, on the grounds that the records were the research information of its faculty member and, in the alternative, that the records were not in its custody or under its control. Order F22-48 found that the records were in the custody of TRU and that it had failed to establish that s. 3(1)(e) applied. The order was subject to judicial review that required the Commissioner to reconsider the issue as to the application of s. 3(1)(e). During reconsideration, the adjudicator found that TRU applied s. 3(1)(e) correctly to some of the records but ordered it to continue processing the request for the records to which it had incorrectly applied s. 3(1)(e). Also, during reconsideration, the adjudicator considered a new issue raised by TRU, which was that it did not have custody or control of some of the records because they contained information of a purely personal nature. The adjudicator found that only some of those records contained information of a purely personal nature. He ordered TRU to continue processing the request for records that were not correctly characterized as containing information of a purely personal nature. In summary, the adjudicator ordered TRU to continue processing about 250 of the almost 6000 pages of records at issue.
F25-15 Mar 5, 2025 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
An applicant requested access to a contract between BC Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) and a third party. BC Hydro disclosed the contract to the applicant, but withheld some information in it under ss. 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21 (harm to business interests of a third party), and 22 (harm to third-party privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that ss. 17 and 21 applied to some of the withheld information, but that s. 22 did not apply to any of the information. The adjudicator ordered BC Hydro to disclose to the applicant the information it was not required or authorized to withhold.An applicant requested access to a contract between BC Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) and a third party. BC Hydro disclosed the contract to the applicant, but withheld some information in it under ss. 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21 (harm to business interests of a third party), and 22 (harm to third-party privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that ss. 17 and 21 applied to some of the withheld information, but that s. 22 did not apply to any of the information. The adjudicator ordered BC Hydro to disclose to the applicant the information it was not required or authorized to withhold.
P25-03 Mar 4, 2025 A Pawsh Oasis Pet Resort
An individual complained that the organization disclosed her personal information contrary to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) when it posted her personal information in reply to her online review of the organization. The adjudicator found that PIPA did not authorize the disclosure of the personal information, and that the organization had contravened s. 6. The adjudicator ordered the organization to remove all of the personal information about the complainant that it had posted on the internet.An individual complained that the organization disclosed her personal information contrary to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) when it posted her personal information in reply to her online review of the organization. The adjudicator found that PIPA did not authorize the disclosure of the personal information, and that the organization had contravened s. 6. The adjudicator ordered the organization to remove all of the personal information about the complainant that it had posted on the internet.
F25-14 Mar 4, 2025 University of Victoria
The University of Victoria (UVIC) requested authorization to disregard future requests from the respondent under s. 43(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that UVIC had not established that previous requests were frivolous or vexatious, under s. 43(a). The adjudicator declined to provide UVIC with authorization to disregard future duplicate requests.The University of Victoria (UVIC) requested authorization to disregard future requests from the respondent under s. 43(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that UVIC had not established that previous requests were frivolous or vexatious, under s. 43(a). The adjudicator declined to provide UVIC with authorization to disregard future duplicate requests.
P25-02 Feb 24, 2025 Victory Square Law Office, International Longshore Workers Union Local 500
Victory Square Law Office (organization) applied for relief for itself and its union client (Union) (collectively, the organizations) under s. 37(b) of the Personal Information Protection Act to disregard outstanding and future access requests made by the respondent. The adjudicator found the outstanding access requests were frivolous and authorized the organizations to disregard them. The adjudicator also found that future access requests from the respondent were likely to be frivolous because there is no live issue between the parties and granted further relief on that basis. Victory Square Law Office (organization) applied for relief for itself and its union client (Union) (collectively, the organizations) under s. 37(b) of the Personal Information Protection Act to disregard outstanding and future access requests made by the respondent. The adjudicator found the outstanding access requests were frivolous and authorized the organizations to disregard them. The adjudicator also found that future access requests from the respondent were likely to be frivolous because there is no live issue between the parties and granted further relief on that basis.
F25-13 Feb 20, 2025 Simon Fraser University
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Simon Fraser University (SFU) for certain records containing his personal information. SFU withheld the information in dispute under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of any property or system), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that SFU was authorized or required to withhold most of the information in dispute under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered SFU to disclose the information to which ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply. The adjudicator also found that SFU had not properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1) and ordered SFU to reconsider its decision to withhold the information to which s. 13(1) applied. The applicant did not dispute the application of s. 15(1)(l) so it was not necessary for the adjudicator to make a decision about the information withheld under that section. An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Simon Fraser University (SFU) for certain records containing his personal information. SFU withheld the information in dispute under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of any property or system), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that SFU was authorized or required to withhold most of the information in dispute under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered SFU to disclose the information to which ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply. The adjudicator also found that SFU had not properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1) and ordered SFU to reconsider its decision to withhold the information to which s. 13(1) applied. The applicant did not dispute the application of s. 15(1)(l) so it was not necessary for the adjudicator to make a decision about the information withheld under that section.
F25-12 Feb 20, 2025 Simon Fraser University
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Simon Fraser University (SFU) for certain records containing his personal information. SFU withheld the information in dispute under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a property or system), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that SFU was authorized or required to withhold most of the information under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered SFU to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold. The adjudicator also found that SFU had not properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1) and ordered SFU to reconsider its decision to withhold the information to which s. 13(1) applied. It was not necessary to consider s. 15(1)(l).An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Simon Fraser University (SFU) for certain records containing his personal information. SFU withheld the information in dispute under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a property or system), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that SFU was authorized or required to withhold most of the information under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered SFU to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold. The adjudicator also found that SFU had not properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1) and ordered SFU to reconsider its decision to withhold the information to which s. 13(1) applied. It was not necessary to consider s. 15(1)(l).
P25-01 Feb 13, 2025 The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1872
An owner of a unit in a strata building complained that the strata corporation was in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) by inappropriately collecting and using her personal information to confirm her principal residency. The alleged violation took place when the complainant unsuccessfully applied to the strata corporation for an approval letter to confirm short-term accommodations (STA) are allowed by the strata. The letter was to support her application to the City of Vancouver for a license to operate a STA business in her strata unit. The strata corporation argued its collection and use were appropriate because they were for the purpose of ensuring strata units are not used illegally. The adjudicator concluded the strata corporation was not authorized under PIPA to collect and use her personal information because its purposes were inappropriate in these circumstances. The adjudicator required the strata corporation to stop collecting and using her personal information. An owner of a unit in a strata building complained that the strata corporation was in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) by inappropriately collecting and using her personal information to confirm her principal residency. The alleged violation took place when the complainant unsuccessfully applied to the strata corporation for an approval letter to confirm short-term accommodations (STA) are allowed by the strata. The letter was to support her application to the City of Vancouver for a license to operate a STA business in her strata unit. The strata corporation argued its collection and use were appropriate because they were for the purpose of ensuring strata units are not used illegally. The adjudicator concluded the strata corporation was not authorized under PIPA to collect and use her personal information because its purposes were inappropriate in these circumstances. The adjudicator required the strata corporation to stop collecting and using her personal information.
F25-11 Feb 6, 2025 Public Service Agency
An applicant requested records from the Public Service Agency (PSA). pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The PSA acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access request within the time limit required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the PSA had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of the FIPPA and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified date.An applicant requested records from the Public Service Agency (PSA). pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The PSA acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access request within the time limit required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the PSA had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of the FIPPA and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified date.
F25-10 Feb 6, 2025 Ministry of Attorney General
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records regarding a complaint she made about a criminal matter. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) withheld the records under ss. 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the Ministry’s decision, and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. The Ministry did not provide the records to the adjudicator in the inquiry. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the records for his review so he could decide if ss. 15(1)(g), 16(1)(b) and 22(1) apply. An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records regarding a complaint she made about a criminal matter. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) withheld the records under ss. 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the Ministry’s decision, and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. The Ministry did not provide the records to the adjudicator in the inquiry. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the records for his review so he could decide if ss. 15(1)(g), 16(1)(b) and 22(1) apply.
F25-09 Jan 27, 2025 Ministry of Finance
An applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access request within the timeline required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the Ministry had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified date.An applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access request within the timeline required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the Ministry had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified date.
F25-08 Jan 27, 2025 Ministry of Agriculture and Food
An applicant requested records from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access request within the timeline required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the Ministry had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified date.An applicant requested records from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry acknowledged it did not respond to the applicant’s access request within the timeline required by s. 7 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the Ministry had not fulfilled its duty under s. 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified date.
F25-07 Jan 27, 2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal
An individual requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about himself, his worker’s compensation claims, and his appeals from decisions made about his claims. The individual directed his request to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT). WCAT applied, under ss. 43 (a) and (b), of FIPPA, for authorization to disregard the request because it is vexatious and because the information is accessible by the individual from another source. The adjudicator determined that the individual’s request was not vexatious and the information at issue is not accessible by the individual from another source. The adjudicator declined to authorize WCAT to disregard the individual’s access request.An individual requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about himself, his worker’s compensation claims, and his appeals from decisions made about his claims. The individual directed his request to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT). WCAT applied, under ss. 43 (a) and (b), of FIPPA, for authorization to disregard the request because it is vexatious and because the information is accessible by the individual from another source. The adjudicator determined that the individual’s request was not vexatious and the information at issue is not accessible by the individual from another source. The adjudicator declined to authorize WCAT to disregard the individual’s access request.
F25-06 Jan 16, 2025 Ministry of Health
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), a journalist (applicant) requested that the Ministry of Health (Ministry) provide access to PharmaNet data about the prescribing and dispensing of specific medications. The Ministry withheld the entire record under several sections of FIPPA and the Pharmaceutical Services Act (PSA). The adjudicator found that releasing the record would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy and ordered the Ministry to withhold the information pursuant to s. 22(1) of FIPPA. Because of the adjudicator’s conclusion that s. 22(1) of FIPPA covered the entire record, it was not necessary to consider the other matters at issue in the inquiry.Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), a journalist (applicant) requested that the Ministry of Health (Ministry) provide access to PharmaNet data about the prescribing and dispensing of specific medications. The Ministry withheld the entire record under several sections of FIPPA and the Pharmaceutical Services Act (PSA). The adjudicator found that releasing the record would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy and ordered the Ministry to withhold the information pursuant to s. 22(1) of FIPPA. Because of the adjudicator’s conclusion that s. 22(1) of FIPPA covered the entire record, it was not necessary to consider the other matters at issue in the inquiry.
F25-05 Jan 15, 2025 City of Port Moody
An applicant requested records from the City of Port Moody (City) related to the City investigating the applicant’s interactions with City staff. The City disclosed some responsive information but withheld the rest under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the City was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to release the information the City was not required to withhold. An applicant requested records from the City of Port Moody (City) related to the City investigating the applicant’s interactions with City staff. The City disclosed some responsive information but withheld the rest under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the City was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to release the information the City was not required to withhold.
F25-04 Jan 13, 2025 City of Vancouver
An applicant requested the City of Vancouver (City) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records of his job interview for a promotion. The City provided responsive records but refused to disclose some information under ss. 3(3)(h) (scope of FIPPA) and 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision, in full. An applicant requested the City of Vancouver (City) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records of his job interview for a promotion. The City provided responsive records but refused to disclose some information under ss. 3(3)(h) (scope of FIPPA) and 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision, in full.
F25-03 Jan 13, 2025 British Columbia Utilities Commission
The City of Richmond requested the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to the communications of two of its named commissioners over a three year period. BCUC refused access to the responsive records on the basis that the Administrative Tribunals Act (ATA) and various sections of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, BCUC’s decisions under s. 61(2)(a) (application of FIPPA) of the ATA and s.13(1) (advice or recommendations) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed, in full, BCUC’s decision under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered BCUC to disclose the remaining information to Richmond. The City of Richmond requested the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to the communications of two of its named commissioners over a three year period. BCUC refused access to the responsive records on the basis that the Administrative Tribunals Act (ATA) and various sections of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, BCUC’s decisions under s. 61(2)(a) (application of FIPPA) of the ATA and s.13(1) (advice or recommendations) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed, in full, BCUC’s decision under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered BCUC to disclose the remaining information to Richmond.
F25-02 Jan 10, 2025 City of Courtenay
An applicant asked the City of Courtenay (City) for access to records related to a residential development and the surrounding area. The City provided the records but withheld some information under several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) applied to some of the withheld information and ordered the City to disclose the balance of the information. The adjudicator also found that the City had not properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1) and ordered the City to reconsider its decision to withhold the information to which s. 13(1) applied, and in doing so to exercise its discretion upon proper considerations.An applicant asked the City of Courtenay (City) for access to records related to a residential development and the surrounding area. The City provided the records but withheld some information under several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) applied to some of the withheld information and ordered the City to disclose the balance of the information. The adjudicator also found that the City had not properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1) and ordered the City to reconsider its decision to withhold the information to which s. 13(1) applied, and in doing so to exercise its discretion upon proper considerations.
F25-01 Jan 8, 2025 Cultus Lake Park Board
An individual complained to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that the Cultus Lake Park Board (Board) contravened the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by improperly collecting, using and disclosing his personal information. The alleged contraventions took place when the complainant applied to serve on one of the Board’s committees. The Board argued the disputed use and disclosure of the complainant’s personal information was authorized under ss. 32(a) and 33(2)(d) of FIPPA. The Board also argued the information at issue that it had collected verbally from an individual was not subject to FIPPA because it was not recorded information. The adjudicator found the verbally collected information about the complainant at issue in the inquiry did not qualify as “personal information” as defined in FIPPA because it did not exist in a recorded format. For the other information in dispute, the adjudicator determined the Board’s use of the complainant’s personal information was not authorized under s. 32(a) and its disclosure was not authorized under s. 33(2)(d). The adjudicator made an order under s. 58(3)(e) requiring the Board to stop using and disclosing the complainant’s personal information in contravention of ss. 32(a) and 33(2)(d) of FIPPAAn individual complained to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that the Cultus Lake Park Board (Board) contravened the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by improperly collecting, using and disclosing his personal information. The alleged contraventions took place when the complainant applied to serve on one of the Board’s committees. The Board argued the disputed use and disclosure of the complainant’s personal information was authorized under ss. 32(a) and 33(2)(d) of FIPPA. The Board also argued the information at issue that it had collected verbally from an individual was not subject to FIPPA because it was not recorded information. The adjudicator found the verbally collected information about the complainant at issue in the inquiry did not qualify as “personal information” as defined in FIPPA because it did not exist in a recorded format. For the other information in dispute, the adjudicator determined the Board’s use of the complainant’s personal information was not authorized under s. 32(a) and its disclosure was not authorized under s. 33(2)(d). The adjudicator made an order under s. 58(3)(e) requiring the Board to stop using and disclosing the complainant’s personal information in contravention of ss. 32(a) and 33(2)(d) of FIPPA
P24-13 Dec 18, 2024 Glenn Issler
Two individuals (complainants) requested access to certain documents from their mortgage broker under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The complainants alleged that the mortgage broker did not provide all of their personal information. The adjudicator found that the mortgage broker did not make a reasonable effort to respond to the complainants as accurately and completely as reasonably possible under s. 28(b) or make a reasonable effort to provide the requested personal information under s. 28(c). The adjudicator ordered the mortgage broker to perform his duties under ss. 28(b) and (c). Two individuals (complainants) requested access to certain documents from their mortgage broker under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The complainants alleged that the mortgage broker did not provide all of their personal information. The adjudicator found that the mortgage broker did not make a reasonable effort to respond to the complainants as accurately and completely as reasonably possible under s. 28(b) or make a reasonable effort to provide the requested personal information under s. 28(c). The adjudicator ordered the mortgage broker to perform his duties under ss. 28(b) and (c).
F24-101 Dec 17, 2024 British Columbia Utilities Commission
The City of Richmond requested the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to all communications between two of its named commissioners and certain named energy companies. BCUC refused access to the responsive records on the basis that the Administrative Tribunals Act (ATA) and various sections of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator confirmed BCUC’s decision under s. 13(1), in part, and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.The City of Richmond requested the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to all communications between two of its named commissioners and certain named energy companies. BCUC refused access to the responsive records on the basis that the Administrative Tribunals Act (ATA) and various sections of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator confirmed BCUC’s decision under s. 13(1), in part, and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
F24-100 Dec 12, 2024 City of Burnaby
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about multiple parcels of land and related matters involving the City of Burnaby (the City). The City disclosed responsive records but withheld some information and records under several FIPPA exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator determined that the City may withhold all of the information withheld under 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), must refuse access to most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy), may withhold most of the information at issue under ss.13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14 (solicitor client privilege), and must refuse access to a small amount of the information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator required the City to give the applicant access to the information that it was not required or permitted to refuse to disclose.An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about multiple parcels of land and related matters involving the City of Burnaby (the City). The City disclosed responsive records but withheld some information and records under several FIPPA exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator determined that the City may withhold all of the information withheld under 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), must refuse access to most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy), may withhold most of the information at issue under ss.13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14 (solicitor client privilege), and must refuse access to a small amount of the information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator required the City to give the applicant access to the information that it was not required or permitted to refuse to disclose.
F24-99 Nov 29, 2024 Ministry of Health
An applicant requested that the Ministry of Health (the Ministry) provide him access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a copy of the Ministry’s draft provincial medical ventilator allocation framework and other related records. The Ministry disclosed responsive records but withheld some records in their entirety and parts of other records under multiple FIPPA exceptions to disclosure. The Ministry also disputed the applicant’s claim that that s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure) required disclosure. The adjudicator confirmed that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and required to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 12(1) (cabinet confidences). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry may not refuse access to the limited amount of information it withheld solely under s.13(1) (advice or recommendations) and ordered the Ministry to disclose that information. The adjudicator determined that s. 25(1) does not require the Ministry to disclose any of the information that the applicant said engages ss. 25(1)(a) or (b).An applicant requested that the Ministry of Health (the Ministry) provide him access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a copy of the Ministry’s draft provincial medical ventilator allocation framework and other related records. The Ministry disclosed responsive records but withheld some records in their entirety and parts of other records under multiple FIPPA exceptions to disclosure. The Ministry also disputed the applicant’s claim that that s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure) required disclosure. The adjudicator confirmed that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and required to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 12(1) (cabinet confidences). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry may not refuse access to the limited amount of information it withheld solely under s.13(1) (advice or recommendations) and ordered the Ministry to disclose that information. The adjudicator determined that s. 25(1) does not require the Ministry to disclose any of the information that the applicant said engages ss. 25(1)(a) or (b).
F24-98 Nov 28, 2024 Ministry of Citizens' Services
The Ministry of Citizens’ Services (Ministry) requested that the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56(1) to refuse to conduct an inquiry on the basis of abuse of process. The adjudicator dismissed the Ministry’s s. 56(1) application and directed the matter to an inquiry.The Ministry of Citizens’ Services (Ministry) requested that the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56(1) to refuse to conduct an inquiry on the basis of abuse of process. The adjudicator dismissed the Ministry’s s. 56(1) application and directed the matter to an inquiry.
F24-97 Nov 25, 2024 Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to information about a complaint he made to the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC). CPABC provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that CPABC was required to withhold most of the information in dispute under s. 22(1) and was not authorized to withhold the disputed information under s. 15(1). The adjudicator found that it was not necessary to decide if s. 13(1) also applied. The adjudicator ordered CPABC to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to withhold to the applicant. The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to information about a complaint he made to the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC). CPABC provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that CPABC was required to withhold most of the information in dispute under s. 22(1) and was not authorized to withhold the disputed information under s. 15(1). The adjudicator found that it was not necessary to decide if s. 13(1) also applied. The adjudicator ordered CPABC to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to withhold to the applicant.
F24-96 Nov 22, 2024 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority
The applicant requested a copy of the results of their own psychological assessment. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Authority) asserted that it could not provide the record under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because the record was not in its custody or under its control. The adjudicator found that the record was under the Authority’s control and ordered it to respond to the applicant’s access request as required by Part 2 of FIPPA. The applicant requested a copy of the results of their own psychological assessment. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Authority) asserted that it could not provide the record under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because the record was not in its custody or under its control. The adjudicator found that the record was under the Authority’s control and ordered it to respond to the applicant’s access request as required by Part 2 of FIPPA.
P24-12 Nov 19, 2024 Spice Management Group Inc.
An individual requested information from Spice Management Group Inc. (Spice) under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). When Spice did not respond, the individual filed a complaint with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) alleging that Spice had failed to respond within the timelines in s. 29(1) (time limit for response) of PIPA. In response, Spice applied for authorization from the OIPC under s. 37 of PIPA to disregard the access request. The adjudicator declined to consider Spice’s request to disregard because it was made after the deadline to respond to the access request, and there were no circumstances that warranted considering an overdue request. The adjudicator also determined that Spice failed to meet its obligations under s. 29(1) and ordered Spice to respond to the request in compliance with the requirements of ss. 28 (duty to assist) and 30 (content of response) of PIPA. An individual requested information from Spice Management Group Inc. (Spice) under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). When Spice did not respond, the individual filed a complaint with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) alleging that Spice had failed to respond within the timelines in s. 29(1) (time limit for response) of PIPA. In response, Spice applied for authorization from the OIPC under s. 37 of PIPA to disregard the access request. The adjudicator declined to consider Spice’s request to disregard because it was made after the deadline to respond to the access request, and there were no circumstances that warranted considering an overdue request. The adjudicator also determined that Spice failed to meet its obligations under s. 29(1) and ordered Spice to respond to the request in compliance with the requirements of ss. 28 (duty to assist) and 30 (content of response) of PIPA.
F24-95 Nov 19, 2024 British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives
An applicant requested the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (College) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to a complaint about a nursing student. The College withheld information from the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision to withhold information from the responsive records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). An applicant requested the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (College) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to a complaint about a nursing student. The College withheld information from the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision to withhold information from the responsive records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy).
F24-94 Nov 13, 2024 Ministry of Health
An individual (applicant) asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for access to records related to a meeting between the Ministry and the Society for Canadians Studying Medicine Abroad (SOCASMA). The Ministry provided records but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and other provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision under s. 13(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.An individual (applicant) asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for access to records related to a meeting between the Ministry and the Society for Canadians Studying Medicine Abroad (SOCASMA). The Ministry provided records but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and other provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision under s. 13(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
F24-93 Nov 8, 2024 Ministry of Children and Family Development
An applicant requested information about himself from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under various sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(3)(a) of FIPPA (records to which FIPPA does not apply) did not apply. The adjudicator found that ss. 77(1) (identity of a person who made a child protection report) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during an assessment or investigation) of the CFCSA applied to most, but not all, of the information the Ministry withheld under those sections. The adjudicator found that the Ministry properly applied s. 14 of FIPPA (solicitor-client privilege), and that the Ministry was required to withhold most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose. An applicant requested information about himself from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under various sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(3)(a) of FIPPA (records to which FIPPA does not apply) did not apply. The adjudicator found that ss. 77(1) (identity of a person who made a child protection report) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during an assessment or investigation) of the CFCSA applied to most, but not all, of the information the Ministry withheld under those sections. The adjudicator found that the Ministry properly applied s. 14 of FIPPA (solicitor-client privilege), and that the Ministry was required to withhold most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
F24-92 Oct 29, 2024 Township of Langley
The Township of Langley (Township) applied for authorization to disregard part of an outstanding access request. The adjudicator found the outstanding request was excessively broad and responding to it would unreasonably interfere with the Township’s operations under s. 43(c)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator authorized the Township to disregard the outstanding request. The Township of Langley (Township) applied for authorization to disregard part of an outstanding access request. The adjudicator found the outstanding request was excessively broad and responding to it would unreasonably interfere with the Township’s operations under s. 43(c)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator authorized the Township to disregard the outstanding request.
F24-91 Oct 22, 2024 Vancouver Island Health Authority
An applicant made a request, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to the Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) for access to all correspondence between Island Health and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia regarding a specific series of events involving the applicant. Island Health withheld all the records responsive to the applicant’s request under s. 53 (confidential information) of the Health Professions Act and several exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA. The adjudicator found that Island Health was required to withhold most of the information in dispute under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA and was authorized to withhold some of the information in dispute under s.15(1)(d) (reveal confidential source of law enforcement information) of FIPPA. However, she found that Island Health was not authorized to withhold the other information in dispute under ss. 15(1)(a) (harm to law enforcement), 15(1)(d) or 19(1)(a) (harm to individual or public safety) of FIPPA. She found that FIPPA prevails over s. 53 of the Health Professions Act (HPA) and, therefore, Island Health was not required or authorized under s.53 of the HPA to withhold any information in the records responsive to the applicant’s access request. Island Health was ordered to give the applicant access to the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose.An applicant made a request, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to the Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) for access to all correspondence between Island Health and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia regarding a specific series of events involving the applicant. Island Health withheld all the records responsive to the applicant’s request under s. 53 (confidential information) of the Health Professions Act and several exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA. The adjudicator found that Island Health was required to withhold most of the information in dispute under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA and was authorized to withhold some of the information in dispute under s.15(1)(d) (reveal confidential source of law enforcement information) of FIPPA. However, she found that Island Health was not authorized to withhold the other information in dispute under ss. 15(1)(a) (harm to law enforcement), 15(1)(d) or 19(1)(a) (harm to individual or public safety) of FIPPA. She found that FIPPA prevails over s. 53 of the Health Professions Act (HPA) and, therefore, Island Health was not required or authorized under s.53 of the HPA to withhold any information in the records responsive to the applicant’s access request. Island Health was ordered to give the applicant access to the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose.
F24-90 Oct 22, 2024 Ministry of Health
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Health (Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The applicant complained to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that the Ministry did not respond to the access request. The adjudicator found that the Ministry did not respond by the timeline set out in s. 7 of FIPPA and ordered it to respond to the applicant. The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Health (Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The applicant complained to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that the Ministry did not respond to the access request. The adjudicator found that the Ministry did not respond by the timeline set out in s. 7 of FIPPA and ordered it to respond to the applicant.
P24-11 Oct 21, 2024 The CARDON Group
An applicant requested access to their personal information under the control of their former employer, the CARDON Group. The CARDON Group refused to disclose some information to the applicant under ss. 23(4)(c) and 23(4)(d) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner review the CARDON Group’s decision to refuse access and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. During the inquiry, the applicant revealed they already had an unredacted copy of the documents at issue in the inquiry. As a result, the adjudicator had to decide whether it would be appropriate to exercise the discretion available under s. 50(1) of PIPA to cancel the inquiry because the issues to be decided at the inquiry were now moot. The adjudicator determined it was appropriate to cancel the inquiry because the CARDON Group’s decision to refuse access to the information in dispute under ss. 23(4)(c) and 23(4)(d) was moot and there were no factors that warranted proceeding with the inquiry. An applicant requested access to their personal information under the control of their former employer, the CARDON Group. The CARDON Group refused to disclose some information to the applicant under ss. 23(4)(c) and 23(4)(d) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner review the CARDON Group’s decision to refuse access and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. During the inquiry, the applicant revealed they already had an unredacted copy of the documents at issue in the inquiry. As a result, the adjudicator had to decide whether it would be appropriate to exercise the discretion available under s. 50(1) of PIPA to cancel the inquiry because the issues to be decided at the inquiry were now moot. The adjudicator determined it was appropriate to cancel the inquiry because the CARDON Group’s decision to refuse access to the information in dispute under ss. 23(4)(c) and 23(4)(d) was moot and there were no factors that warranted proceeding with the inquiry.
F24-89 Oct 18, 2024 Ministry of Attorney General
The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) requested that the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56(1) to refuse to conduct an inquiry on the basis that the applicant is abusing FIPPA’s processes. The adjudicator found that the applicant’s conduct did not amount to an abuse of process and dismissed the Ministry’s s. 56 application. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) requested that the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56(1) to refuse to conduct an inquiry on the basis that the applicant is abusing FIPPA’s processes. The adjudicator found that the applicant’s conduct did not amount to an abuse of process and dismissed the Ministry’s s. 56 application.
F24-88 Oct 2, 2024 Ministry of Attorney General
The applicants requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to information about a complaint they made to the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry). The Ministry provided the responsive records to the applicants but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The Ministry also disputed the applicants’ claim that the public interest required disclosure under s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and ordered the Ministry to give the applicants access to the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose. The adjudicator also found that s. 25(1) did not require the Ministry to disclose the information in dispute. The applicants requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to information about a complaint they made to the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry). The Ministry provided the responsive records to the applicants but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The Ministry also disputed the applicants’ claim that the public interest required disclosure under s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and ordered the Ministry to give the applicants access to the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose. The adjudicator also found that s. 25(1) did not require the Ministry to disclose the information in dispute.
F24-87 Oct 1, 2024 Provincial Health Services Authority
A third party requested a review of the public body’s decision to disclose records in response to an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The third party asserted the public body must refuse to disclose information in the records under s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to any of the information in dispute and ordered the public body to disclose the requested records to the applicant.A third party requested a review of the public body’s decision to disclose records in response to an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The third party asserted the public body must refuse to disclose information in the records under s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to any of the information in dispute and ordered the public body to disclose the requested records to the applicant.
F24-86 Sep 27, 2024 British Columbia Housing Management Commission
An applicant requested access to records about employee exit interviews conducted by the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (Commission). The Commission disclosed some responsive records but withheld information from them and other records in their entirety pursuant to s. 22(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the Commission was required to withhold almost all the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Commission to disclose the information it was not required to withhold to the applicant.An applicant requested access to records about employee exit interviews conducted by the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (Commission). The Commission disclosed some responsive records but withheld information from them and other records in their entirety pursuant to s. 22(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the Commission was required to withhold almost all the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Commission to disclose the information it was not required to withhold to the applicant.
F24-85 Sep 26, 2024 Fraser Health Authority
An applicant requested access to her deceased mother’s medical records from Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health). Fraser Health refused the applicant’s access request, taking the position that the applicant was not acting on behalf of her mother under s. 5(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation, and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. During the inquiry, Fraser Health disclosed some information in the responsive records. The adjudicator determined that the applicant was not acting on behalf of her mother, and that disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy under s. 22(1).An applicant requested access to her deceased mother’s medical records from Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health). Fraser Health refused the applicant’s access request, taking the position that the applicant was not acting on behalf of her mother under s. 5(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation, and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. During the inquiry, Fraser Health disclosed some information in the responsive records. The adjudicator determined that the applicant was not acting on behalf of her mother, and that disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy under s. 22(1).
F24-84 Sep 24, 2024 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
An applicant asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for access to records about him. ICBC disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that ICBC was authorized to withhold some, but not all, of the disputed information under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator also found that ICBC was required to withhold a small amount of third-party personal information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22(1). An applicant asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for access to records about him. ICBC disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that ICBC was authorized to withhold some, but not all, of the disputed information under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator also found that ICBC was required to withhold a small amount of third-party personal information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22(1).
F24-81 Sep 18, 2024 Thompson Rivers University
An applicant requested access to records exchanged between Thompson Rivers University (TRU) and its legal counsel regarding an investigation into a workplace complaint a TRU faculty member made about the applicant. TRU disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 19 (disclosure harmful to individual health and safety), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 14 and required to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 22. As TRU’s withheld the same information under s. 19 and s. 22, the adjudicator did not consider s. 19.An applicant requested access to records exchanged between Thompson Rivers University (TRU) and its legal counsel regarding an investigation into a workplace complaint a TRU faculty member made about the applicant. TRU disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 19 (disclosure harmful to individual health and safety), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 14 and required to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 22. As TRU’s withheld the same information under s. 19 and s. 22, the adjudicator did not consider s. 19.
F24-83 Sep 16, 2024 Langara College
An applicant requested a report written by an investigator relating to a workplace investigation from Langara College (College) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The College partially disclosed some information in the report but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 19(1)(a) (threat to anyone else’s safety or mental or physical health) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some of the information in dispute, but that s. 19(1)(a) did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose the information that it is not authorized or required to withhold. An applicant requested a report written by an investigator relating to a workplace investigation from Langara College (College) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The College partially disclosed some information in the report but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 19(1)(a) (threat to anyone else’s safety or mental or physical health) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some of the information in dispute, but that s. 19(1)(a) did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose the information that it is not authorized or required to withhold.
F24-82 Sep 6, 2024 Ministry of Forests
An applicant asked the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for access to a draft report regarding a wildfire. The Ministry refused access on the basis that the report was not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry pursuant to s. 3(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and, in the alternative, pursuant to ss. 15 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) and 16 (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations) of FIPPA. The applicant argued that disclosure was clearly in the public interest pursuant to s. 25(1)(b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the report was not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry and the applicant had no right to access it under FIPPA. Therefore, there was no need to decide if ss. 15, 16, or 25(1)(b) applied.An applicant asked the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for access to a draft report regarding a wildfire. The Ministry refused access on the basis that the report was not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry pursuant to s. 3(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and, in the alternative, pursuant to ss. 15 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) and 16 (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations) of FIPPA. The applicant argued that disclosure was clearly in the public interest pursuant to s. 25(1)(b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the report was not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry and the applicant had no right to access it under FIPPA. Therefore, there was no need to decide if ss. 15, 16, or 25(1)(b) applied.
F24-80 Sep 4, 2024 Ministry of Education
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a report (Report) about the board of education for School District No. 33 and other related records. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records but withheld information in the Report under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner review the Ministry’s decision and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. The adjudicator determined the Ministry correctly applied s. 22(1) to the information at issue in the Report. An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a report (Report) about the board of education for School District No. 33 and other related records. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records but withheld information in the Report under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner review the Ministry’s decision and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. The adjudicator determined the Ministry correctly applied s. 22(1) to the information at issue in the Report.
P24-10 Aug 28, 2024 BC Society for the Protection of Animals
An individual (the applicant) made a request under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to the British Columbia Society for the Protection of Animals (SPCA) for access to his personal information. The SPCA provided the responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 3(2)(h) (documents related to a prosecution), 3(3) (solicitor-client privilege), 23(3)(a) (solicitor-client privilege), 23(3)(b) (harm to competitive position), 23(3)(c) (collected without consent for investigation and associated proceedings and appeals not complete), 23(4)(d) (identity of individual who provided information about another) and on the basis that the information was not the applicant’s personal information. The adjudicator also considered the application of s. 23(4)(c) to the information in dispute. The adjudicator found that the applicant had no right to access some of the information because it was not his personal information. With respect to the applicant’s personal information, the adjudicator determined that the SPCA was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 23(3)(a), 23(4)(c), and 23(4)(d), and that some other information could not be severed from the documents containing privileged information under s. 23(5). The adjudicator ordered the SCPA to disclose the balance of the withheld information to the applicant.An individual (the applicant) made a request under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to the British Columbia Society for the Protection of Animals (SPCA) for access to his personal information. The SPCA provided the responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 3(2)(h) (documents related to a prosecution), 3(3) (solicitor-client privilege), 23(3)(a) (solicitor-client privilege), 23(3)(b) (harm to competitive position), 23(3)(c) (collected without consent for investigation and associated proceedings and appeals not complete), 23(4)(d) (identity of individual who provided information about another) and on the basis that the information was not the applicant’s personal information. The adjudicator also considered the application of s. 23(4)(c) to the information in dispute. The adjudicator found that the applicant had no right to access some of the information because it was not his personal information. With respect to the applicant’s personal information, the adjudicator determined that the SPCA was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 23(3)(a), 23(4)(c), and 23(4)(d), and that some other information could not be severed from the documents containing privileged information under s. 23(5). The adjudicator ordered the SCPA to disclose the balance of the withheld information to the applicant.
F24-79 Aug 28, 2024 The City of New Westminster
An applicant requested The City of New Westminster (City) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records relating to the end of its former Fire Chief’s employment. The City withheld some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (disclosure harmful to financial or economic interests of public body), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of FIPPA and common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator found the City was authorized to withhold the information under settlement privilege and required to withhold some, but not all, of the information at issue under s. 22. The adjudicator further found the City was not authorized to withhold the information at issue under s. 14. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold.An applicant requested The City of New Westminster (City) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records relating to the end of its former Fire Chief’s employment. The City withheld some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (disclosure harmful to financial or economic interests of public body), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of FIPPA and common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator found the City was authorized to withhold the information under settlement privilege and required to withhold some, but not all, of the information at issue under s. 22. The adjudicator further found the City was not authorized to withhold the information at issue under s. 14. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold.
F24-78 Aug 27, 2024 Ministry of Forests
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for records related to the Ministry’s inspection of the applicant’s property. The Ministry responded to the applicant and withheld some records and information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information and records it withheld under s. 14 and required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 13(1).The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for records related to the Ministry’s inspection of the applicant’s property. The Ministry responded to the applicant and withheld some records and information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information and records it withheld under s. 14 and required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 13(1).
F24-77 Aug 21, 2024 Thompson Rivers University
An applicant requested records from Thompson Rivers University (TRU) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). TRU disclosed the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that TRU was authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under s. 14 and most of the information it withheld under s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that TRU was required to withhold most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered TRU to disclose to the applicant the information it was not authorized or required to withhold.An applicant requested records from Thompson Rivers University (TRU) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). TRU disclosed the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that TRU was authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under s. 14 and most of the information it withheld under s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that TRU was required to withhold most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered TRU to disclose to the applicant the information it was not authorized or required to withhold.
F24-76 Aug 19, 2024 Thompson Rivers University
An applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for access to all documents sent to or received by a specific TRU employee that mention the applicant. TRU disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 19(1)(a) (disclosure harmful to individual safety) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU is required to withhold almost all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that TRU was not required or permitted to withhold a small amount of information under any FIPPA exception to disclosure and required TRU to provide this information to the applicant. Section 19(1)(a) was not at issue with respect to any information that the adjudicator required TRU to provide to the applicant.An applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for access to all documents sent to or received by a specific TRU employee that mention the applicant. TRU disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 19(1)(a) (disclosure harmful to individual safety) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU is required to withhold almost all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that TRU was not required or permitted to withhold a small amount of information under any FIPPA exception to disclosure and required TRU to provide this information to the applicant. Section 19(1)(a) was not at issue with respect to any information that the adjudicator required TRU to provide to the applicant.
F24-75 Aug 16, 2024 Ministry of Health
The Ministry of Health (Ministry) requested the Commissioner exercise their discretion, under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to not conduct an inquiry regarding its decision to refuse an applicant access to requested records. The Ministry argued an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that disclosure could threaten the Provincial Health Officer (PHO)’s safety and mental and physical health in accordance with s. 19(1)(a) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that it was plain and obvious that disclosure could reasonably be expected to threaten the PHO’s safety and mental and physical health. As a result, the adjudicator allowed the Ministry’s s. 56(1) application and the upcoming inquiry was cancelled.The Ministry of Health (Ministry) requested the Commissioner exercise their discretion, under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to not conduct an inquiry regarding its decision to refuse an applicant access to requested records. The Ministry argued an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that disclosure could threaten the Provincial Health Officer (PHO)’s safety and mental and physical health in accordance with s. 19(1)(a) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that it was plain and obvious that disclosure could reasonably be expected to threaten the PHO’s safety and mental and physical health. As a result, the adjudicator allowed the Ministry’s s. 56(1) application and the upcoming inquiry was cancelled.
F24-74 Aug 15, 2024 City of Vernon
An applicant requested from the City of Vernon (City) copies of maintenance records, reports and repair costs relating to recreation centres and other facilities. The City responded that the records were available for purchase by the public and therefore were outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in accordance with s. 3(5)(a). The City also issued a fee estimate under s. 75. The adjudicator found that the records were not available for purchase by the public and s. 3(5)(a) did not apply. The adjudicator also found that the fee estimate was not appropriate under s. 75 and excused the applicant from paying the fee. An applicant requested from the City of Vernon (City) copies of maintenance records, reports and repair costs relating to recreation centres and other facilities. The City responded that the records were available for purchase by the public and therefore were outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in accordance with s. 3(5)(a). The City also issued a fee estimate under s. 75. The adjudicator found that the records were not available for purchase by the public and s. 3(5)(a) did not apply. The adjudicator also found that the fee estimate was not appropriate under s. 75 and excused the applicant from paying the fee.
F24-73 Aug 2, 2024 Ministry of Health
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested the Ministry of Health (Ministry) provide access to a report and other records. The Ministry provided the applicant with partial access to the responsive records, but withheld information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences) and 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of FIPPA. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner review the Ministry’s decision and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. At the inquiry, Simon Fraser University was granted approval to participate in the inquiry as an appropriate person. As well, the applicant and the Ministry made submissions about the impact of a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision for the analysis under s. 12(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the court decision did not significantly change the current s. 12(1) analysis. Applying that analysis, the adjudicator found the Ministry had correctly applied ss. 12(1) and 13(1) to withhold some of the redacted information in the responsive records, but ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that it was not required or authorized to withhold under ss. 12(1) and 13(1). As part of the s. 13(1) decision, the adjudicator developed and clarified the analysis under s. 13(2)(j) (field research report) and s. 13(2)(m) (information publicly cited). Lastly, the adjudicator ordered the head of the Ministry to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Ministry’s head had properly exercised their discretion under s. 13(1).Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested the Ministry of Health (Ministry) provide access to a report and other records. The Ministry provided the applicant with partial access to the responsive records, but withheld information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences) and 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of FIPPA. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner review the Ministry’s decision and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. At the inquiry, Simon Fraser University was granted approval to participate in the inquiry as an appropriate person. As well, the applicant and the Ministry made submissions about the impact of a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision for the analysis under s. 12(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the court decision did not significantly change the current s. 12(1) analysis. Applying that analysis, the adjudicator found the Ministry had correctly applied ss. 12(1) and 13(1) to withhold some of the redacted information in the responsive records, but ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that it was not required or authorized to withhold under ss. 12(1) and 13(1). As part of the s. 13(1) decision, the adjudicator developed and clarified the analysis under s. 13(2)(j) (field research report) and s. 13(2)(m) (information publicly cited). Lastly, the adjudicator ordered the head of the Ministry to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Ministry’s head had properly exercised their discretion under s. 13(1).
F24-72 Jul 25, 2024 Northern Health Authority
An applicant requested records from the Northern Health Authority (Authority) containing information about COVID-19 outbreaks at work camps. In response, the Authority released some information but withheld other information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party), and 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to all the information in dispute under that section and that s. 13 applied to some of the information in dispute under that section. The adjudicator also found the Authority was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 21(1). However, the adjudicator found that none of the sections of FIPPA relied on by the Authority applied to the remaining information in dispute and ordered the Authority to release that information to the applicant.An applicant requested records from the Northern Health Authority (Authority) containing information about COVID-19 outbreaks at work camps. In response, the Authority released some information but withheld other information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party), and 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to all the information in dispute under that section and that s. 13 applied to some of the information in dispute under that section. The adjudicator also found the Authority was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 21(1). However, the adjudicator found that none of the sections of FIPPA relied on by the Authority applied to the remaining information in dispute and ordered the Authority to release that information to the applicant.
F24-71 Jul 25, 2024 Ministry of Forests
An applicant asked the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for access to records about archaeological sites. The Ministry disclosed some information but withheld the rest under s. 18(a) (conservation of heritage sites) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 3(3) (provincial heritage register) of the Heritage Conservation Act. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to withhold the disputed information under s. 18 of FIPPA and it was not necessary to decide if s. 3(3) of the Heritage Conservation Act also applied. An applicant asked the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for access to records about archaeological sites. The Ministry disclosed some information but withheld the rest under s. 18(a) (conservation of heritage sites) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 3(3) (provincial heritage register) of the Heritage Conservation Act. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to withhold the disputed information under s. 18 of FIPPA and it was not necessary to decide if s. 3(3) of the Heritage Conservation Act also applied.
F24-70 Jul 24, 2024 British Columbia Utilities Commission
The City of Richmond requested the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to its communications with the Province of British Columbia related to the establishment of BCUC’s Inquiry into the Regulation of Municipal Energy Utilities. BCUC refused access under various sections of FIPPA. The adjudicator finds the records are not required to be disclosed under s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override); information was properly withheld under s. 13 (advice or recommendations); and that information was not properly withheld under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator orders BCUC to disclose the information it withheld under s. 14.The City of Richmond requested the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to its communications with the Province of British Columbia related to the establishment of BCUC’s Inquiry into the Regulation of Municipal Energy Utilities. BCUC refused access under various sections of FIPPA. The adjudicator finds the records are not required to be disclosed under s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override); information was properly withheld under s. 13 (advice or recommendations); and that information was not properly withheld under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator orders BCUC to disclose the information it withheld under s. 14.
F24-69 Jul 19, 2024 City of Vancouver
An applicant requested, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), a copy of an agreement between the City of Vancouver (City) and the Vancouver Canadians baseball team for the use of Nat Bailey Stadium. The City disclosed the agreement in severed form, withholding some information under s. 21(1) of FIPPA (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator noted that the City had disclosed some of the withheld information in a public report in 2012 but, nevertheless, considered all of the information in dispute. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the withheld information and ordered the City to disclose it to the applicant.An applicant requested, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), a copy of an agreement between the City of Vancouver (City) and the Vancouver Canadians baseball team for the use of Nat Bailey Stadium. The City disclosed the agreement in severed form, withholding some information under s. 21(1) of FIPPA (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator noted that the City had disclosed some of the withheld information in a public report in 2012 but, nevertheless, considered all of the information in dispute. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the withheld information and ordered the City to disclose it to the applicant.
F24-68 Jul 18, 2024 Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General
An applicant made a request to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Ministry) for access to information about the Ministry’s framework for how municipalities may change their policing model. The Ministry provided the applicant with some information but withheld other information under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to withhold all of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) but none of the information in dispute under s. 16(1)(a)(ii) (harm to intergovernmental relations) of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that it was not authorized to withhold under s. 16(1)(a)(ii).An applicant made a request to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Ministry) for access to information about the Ministry’s framework for how municipalities may change their policing model. The Ministry provided the applicant with some information but withheld other information under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to withhold all of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) but none of the information in dispute under s. 16(1)(a)(ii) (harm to intergovernmental relations) of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that it was not authorized to withhold under s. 16(1)(a)(ii).
F24-67 Jul 18, 2024 Thompson Rivers University
The applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (the University) for access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to all communications mentioning him that were sent to or received by a named individual. The University provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the University was authorized to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and required to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the University to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose. The applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (the University) for access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to all communications mentioning him that were sent to or received by a named individual. The University provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the University was authorized to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and required to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the University to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
F24-66 Jul 18, 2024 Ministry of Children and Family Development
An applicant requested access to all records relating to his child from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). The Ministry refused to disclose information on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the child in accordance with s. 5(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 3(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation (Regulation), and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that the applicant was authorized to make the request on behalf of the child and that the Ministry was required to refuse access to some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).An applicant requested access to all records relating to his child from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). The Ministry refused to disclose information on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the child in accordance with s. 5(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 3(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation (Regulation), and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that the applicant was authorized to make the request on behalf of the child and that the Ministry was required to refuse access to some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).