Sectional Index

Whenever personal information is being used outside of the office there is an increased risk that it will be lost or compromised. Public bodies and private organizations must keep paper and electronic records safe and secure as required by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA).

A journalist requested records related to the Provincial Capital Commission’s request for proposals to lease the CPR Steamship Terminal Building in Victoria’s inner harbour. Information was withheld under ss. 13(1), 15(1)(l), 21(1) and 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the majority of the information withheld under s. 13(1) was not advice and recommendations, so it must be disclosed. Regarding s. 15(1)(l), the public body failed to establish the disclosure of architectural drawings could reasonably be expected to harm the building’s security, so they must be disclosed. Regarding s. 21(1), there was no evidence of harm that would result from disclosure of the withheld financial information, and the adjudicator directed that it be provided to the applicant. Finally, the adjudicator ordered disclosure of some of the information that had been withheld under s. 22(1) because it was either not personal information or because disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy.

The applicant journalist requested documents about the rationale for changes to the tolling framework for the Port Mann Bridge. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure withheld information in three records citing Cabinet confidences under s. 12 of FIPPA, and some information in one record it said constituted advice and recommendations under s. 13 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to withhold some of the information under s. 12(1) because disclosure would reveal the substance of the deliberations of Cabinet. Other information must be released because it was either not covered by s. 12(1) or was background material and analysis under s. 12(2)(c). Section 13 did not need to be considered because the information to which it had been applied was protected under s. 12 of FIPPA.

The applicant requested information and details regarding the care and cause of death of her daughter, who passed away while in foster care 34 years ago. The Ministry of Children and Family Development withheld information on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 did not apply in the circumstances, so the Ministry was required to disclose the responsive records. The adjudicator also ordered the Ministry to process the applicant’s request for the information in responsive records that the Ministry had marked out of scope.

The applicant requested information relating to the Burrard Street Bridge. The City released some routine inspection records but withheld portions of eleven engineering reports about different aspects of the bridge, citing ss. 13, 15, 17, 19 and 21 of FIPPA. The Adjudicator ordered the records disclosed because none of the exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA applied.

Hiring employees who are a good fit for a job is an essential component of the operations of any public body. Knowing how an applicant has performed in a previous workplace is an important part of the hiring process and checking references is a practice that gives the prospective employer some idea of how the applicant might perform in the future.

The applicant requested records from the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (“Translink”) for costs he said Translink incurred investigating a workplace dispute and responding to a human rights complaint. In response to the applicant's request, Translink advised the applicant that it was unable to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records on the basis that disclosure of the existence of the requested information would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy (s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that Translink was authorized to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records.

In the course of investigating consumers’ complaints about Active Energy, BCUC commissioned an investigative report from Consumer Protection BC. During the process, BCUC decided the report should be held in confidence and later, having heard submissions, decided to expunge it from the record. BCUC’s enforcement action later resulted in a settlement agreement with Active Energy. The applicant requested access to the report and BCUC decided to disclose it. Active Energy’s appeal is allowed, as s. 61(2)(c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act excludes the record from FIPPA’s application.

In the course of investigating consumers’ complaints about Active Energy, BCUC commissioned an investigative report from Consumer Protection BC. During the process, BCUC decided the report should be held in confidence and later, having heard submissions, decided to expunge it from the record. BCUC’s enforcement action later resulted in a settlement agreement with Active Energy. The applicant requested access to the report and BCUC decided to disclose it. For reasons given in Order F15-06, Active Energy’s appeal is allowed, as s. 61(2)(c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act excludes the record from FIPPA’s application.

A journalist asked for the total value of lottery products purchased through PlayNow.com for each B.C. postal code forward sortation area. A forward sortation area is comprised of the first three characters in a postal code. BCLC withheld the requested information on the basis that it believed disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm BCLC’s financial or economic interests, under s. 17 of FIPPA (specifically ss. 17(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(d)). The applicant said that s. 25(1)(b) of FIPPA applies (i.e., disclosure is in the public interest). The adjudicator found that disclosure of the information was not clearly in the public interest, so BCLC was not required to disclose it under s. 25(1)(b). However, the adjudicator ordered BCLC to disclose the information because BCLC had not established that it was authorized to refuse access under ss. 17(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(d) of FIPPA.

A journalist requested records related to the BC Association of Chiefs of Police and the BC Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police. The Victoria Police Department disclosed some records but refused to disclose other records and information under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 15, 16 and 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”) and s. 182 of the Police Act. The adjudicator found that some records could be withheld because they are outside the scope of FIPPA due to s. 3(1)(c) of FIPPA and others because s. 182 of the Police Act applied. The adjudicator also found that some information could be withheld under s. 13 (advice or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (1)(c) and (l) (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). However, VicPD was not authorized to refuse to disclose any of the information it withheld under s. 16 (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations).

An applicant requested records related to the discovery of asbestos at a building where he had worked for a time. The Ministry disclosed the records with the exception of a small amount of information related to other employees, which it withheld under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to this information and ordered the Ministry to withhold it.

An applicant requested access to records of communications between a named physician and the BC Coroners Service (“BCCS”). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy) applied to the withheld information, as it consisted of personal opinions of or about the physician. The adjudicator ordered BCCS to withhold the information.

A reporter requested access to “Project Work Defect” notices related to Translink’s Compass Card project in Metro Vancouver. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply to the information in the notices. The adjudicator also found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the notices and ordered TransLink to disclose them to the reporter.

An applicant requested records regarding the City of Vancouver Bid Committee, which makes decisions about the City’s procurement of goods and services. The City identified reports that were prepared by City staff for the Bid Committee. It disclosed portions of these reports but withheld some information under ss. 13 and 15 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City is authorized to refuse to disclose the majority of the information withheld under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and all of the information withheld under s. 15 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement).

An applicant requested access to vendors’ submissions in response to ICBC’s Request for Expressions of Interest #2011-006 (providing “bio hazardous vehicle cleaning” services) and any contracts with vendors for providing those services. ICBC decided to disclose BioSolutions Inc.’s Expression of Interest, withholding some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). ICBC also decided to disclose the resulting contract with BioSolutions. BioSolutions objected to the disclosure of both records. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) does not apply to the information which ICBC decided to disclose and ordered ICBC to disclose it to the applicant.

A journalist requested attachments to the contract between Plenary Justice Okanagan and the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services for the design, construction, financing and maintenance of the Okanagan Correctional Centre. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to the information in the attachments because it was not “supplied” but negotiated. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the attachments to the journalist.

A journalist requested access to the contract between PavCo and TED Conferences for the March 2014 Ted Conference. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to the withheld information and ordered PavCo to disclose it to the journalist.

An applicant requested records relating to a personal vacation of the Premier of British Columbia. The Office of the Premier withheld records and information under s. 15 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), s. 16 (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), s. 19 (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Premier’s Office was authorized or required to refuse to disclose some of the withheld information under ss. 15, 16 and 22, and did not have to consider s. 19. The Premier’s Office was ordered to disclose the remaining information to the applicant.

An employee of the Regional District of Nanaimo requested access to any records containing his name. The Regional District provided records but it refused to disclose some information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 17 (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body), 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Regional District’s decision regarding s. 13 but found that it was not authorized or required to refuse access to information under ss. 12(1), 17 or 21. The adjudicator also found that the Regional District is only required to refuse to give the applicant access to a portion of the information being withheld under s. 22.

A journalist requested a specific contract between TransLink and Burrard Communications, in addition to any reports from Burrard about its activities under the contract. TransLink disclosed the records in severed form, withholding some information under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to some of the information. However, the adjudicator found that s. 22(1) does not apply to some information about Burrard’s principal, as the journalist already knows this information, and ordered TransLink to disclose this information to the journalist.

Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.

An applicant requested access to records, including information about his children. The Ministry was satisfied he was their guardian but said he had not shown that he was acting for or on behalf of the children in compliance with s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA, s. (1)(a) of the FIPP Regulation and s. 76(1)(a) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, in exercising their right of access to their personal information. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision.

ICBC disclosed to an applicant a copy of a transcript of an interview with another individual, withholding most of the information under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that the fact that the applicant already knows almost all of the withheld information outweighs any presumed invasion of the other individual’s personal privacy. The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose the transcript to the applicant.

A journalist requested records related to the business case for the replacement of the Massey Tunnel with a bridge. The Ministry of Finance disclosed the responsive records in severed form. It argued at the inquiry that ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) and 13(1) (advice or recommendations) apply to the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applies to all of the withheld information and ordered the Ministry to withhold it. It was not necessary to consider s. 12(1).

The Ministry disclosed a report in severed form, withholding some information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to most of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that s. 13(2)(a) (factual material), s. 13(2)(g) (final report) and s. 13(2)(m) (information cited publicly) did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information to which s. 13(1) does not apply.

A third party objected to BCSC’s decision to disclose records related to a complaint he made to BCSC. The third party argued that disclosure of any of the records would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found BCSC was required to withhold some third party personal information, but the remaining information was to be disclosed to the applicant.

An applicant asked the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia (“PGT”) for records related to a deceased individual. The PGT refused to disclose the personal information under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant was not satisfied with this response and asked that this matter proceed to inquiry. The PGT requested the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56 to not hold an inquiry. The investigator found that it was not plain and obvious that disclosure of the deceased’s information would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22; therefore, the PGT’s request that an inquiry not be held was denied.

An applicant requested a copy of a report on options for replacing New Westminster Secondary School. The School District disclosed the report in severed form, withholding information under s. 17(1) (harm to public body’s financial interests). The adjudicator confirmed the School District’s decision to withhold the information on the grounds that potential bid proponents could use the information in preparing their bids, to the detriment of the School District’s financial interests.

An applicant requested records related to a residency investigation regarding him and his family. The Ministry denied access to information under ss. 15(1)(c) (harm to effectiveness of investigative techniques and procedures), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system), 17(1) (harm to financial interests) and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(c) applied to some information but not to other information, including information which had already been disclosed. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply at all. The applicant was not interested in the information withheld under ss. 15(1)(l) and 22(1) and it was therefore not necessary to consider these exceptions.

An applicant requested records related to a workplace investigation. The Ministry of Finance disclosed the responsive records but severed the contents of one email pursuant to ss. 13 (advice and recommendations) and 14 (legal advice) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to withhold the information under s. 14, and therefore did not need to consider s. 13.

A VIHA employee requested access to all information about her. VIHA provided records but refused to disclose some information under ss. 3(1)(d) (outside scope of Act), 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that s. 3(1)(d) did not apply and VIHA was required to disclose that information to the applicant. The adjudicator confirmed VIHA’s ss. 13, 14 and 22 decisions regarding some of the information. However, the adjudicator found that VIHA was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose other information under those exceptions and ordered VIHA to disclose it to the applicant.

An applicant requested access to records about a contract with Stericycle for the disposal of biomedical waste. The Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) decided to disclose the responsive records, which were an information sheet about a contract between HealthPRO and Stericycle and an expired contract between Stericycle and the PHSA and other BC health authorities. HealthPRO and Stericycle objected to this decision, arguing that s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) applied to the two records. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the records and required the PHSA to disclose them to the applicant.

The Peace Valley Landowners Association (“PVLA”) requested a review of the Ministry’s decision to withhold a briefing note related to the Site C Clean Energy Project, under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 17(1) (harm to public body’s financial interests) of FIPPA. The PVLA also argued that the Ministry was required to disclose the briefing note under s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override). The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply to the briefing note. The adjudicator also found that s. 12(1) did apply to the information in the briefing note and required the Ministry to refuse the PVLA access to it. It was not necessary to consider ss. 13(1) and 17(1).

A resident of the City of White Rock requested access to records related to a statement made by its Chief Administrative Officer about the municipal water supply. The City provided records but it refused to disclose some information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body) and 21 (harm to third party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was not authorized or required to refuse access to the information it had withheld under ss. 12(3), 17 or 21. The adjudicator further determined that s. 25 (public interest) did not apply to the information. The issue of whether certain information was properly withheld under s. 14 was moot because the applicant already had the information as the result of another applicant’s FIPPA request.

An applicant asked the City of Vancouver (“City”) for records showing the calculation of community amenity contributions for a condominium development in the Mount Pleasant area of Vancouver. The City disclosed some information but withheld other information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 17(1) (harm to financial interests of a public body), 21(1) (harm to third-party interests) and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy). The applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) applies to the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) does not apply to the withheld information and that ss. 13(1), 17(1) and 22(1) do. It was not necessary to consider if s. 21(1) applied.

The City applied for authorization to disregard certain of the respondent’s requests for records under s. 43(a) and (b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that 14 of the 20 outstanding requests were systematic or repetitious and responding to them would unreasonably interfere with the City’s operations, so the City was authorized to disregard them under s. 43(a). The adjudicator found that another two requests were frivolous and they could be disregarded under s. 43(b). The City was also authorized to disregard the respondents’ future access requests, in excess of one open access request at a time, for a period of two years.

A journalist requested copies of emails between BCLC‘s chief executive officer ("CEO") and its former Chair and director ("director"). The director objected to disclosure on the grounds that the emails are personal correspondence and thus outside the scope of FIPPA. He argued alternatively that BCLC had improperly "collected" his personal information in the emails. The adjudicator found that the emails are under BCLC‘s control for the purposes of ss. 3(1) and 4(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator also found that BCLC had not "collected" the director‘s personal information in those emails for the purposes of s. 26 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to comply with Order F11-28, by disclosing the emails in severed form as previously ordered.

The Independent Contractors and Business Association requested access to information that 16 union-sponsored pension plans filed with the Office of the Superintendent of Pensions. The Superintendent withheld some of the requested information under s. 21 (harm to third party business interests) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that neither s. 21 nor s. 22 applied and ordered the Superintendent to disclose the information to the applicant.

An applicant asked for the combined total of legal fees and settlement amounts for legal matters between the College and a former employee. The College said that it had no record with this combined amount in its custody or control and it was not obliged to create one under s. 6(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). It also said that the following exceptions applied to the requested information: ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of College), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the College had a duty under s. 6(2) to create a record for the applicant that contained the combined amount of legal fees and settlement amounts, and that the College was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose it to the applicant under ss. 14, 17 or 22.

An applicant requested records related to the Ministry's participation in a federal review panel concerning the applicant's proposed mining project. The Ministry provided the responsive records but withheld some information pursuant to ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a system), 17 (harm to economic interests), 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator held that the Ministry was required to refuse to disclose all of the information in the records withheld under ss. 21 and 22 and was authorized to refuse to disclose most of the information in the records withheld under ss. 13, 14, 15(1)(l) and 17. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to provide a small amount of information to the applicant.

An applicant requested records about a crane investigation. WorkSafeBC disclosed some information, but it withheld other information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13 and 14 apply to some of the withheld information.

A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance he received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The adjudicator held that the information came within s. 22(4)(e), and therefore could not be withheld under s. 22.

A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance she received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The adjudicator held that the information came within s. 22(4)(e), and therefore could not be withheld under s. 22.

A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance he received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The third party argued that the payment was not “remuneration” within the meaning of s. 22(4)(e) because it was not severance pay. The adjudicator held that the payment was a form of remuneration, and, because it came within the scope of s. 22(4)(e), it could not be withheld under s. 22.

The applicant requested copies of a survey conducted by a co-worker and any related records. The public body located a survey cover letter, survey questions, the survey responses, and the names of the individuals who completed the survey. The public body disclosed some of the survey questions and responses to the applicant and withheld the rest under s. 22 of FIPPA (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The public body also located a related workplace investigation report and withheld it in its entirety under ss. 22 and 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s ss. 14 and 22 decisions regarding some of the information. However, the adjudicator found that the public body was not required to refuse to disclose some information under s. 22 and ordered the public body to disclose that information to the applicant.

An applicant requested information about traffic at a redesigned intersection near a Tsawwassen First Nation development. The Ministry provided the responsive records and withheld some information under s. 16(1)(a) (harm to relations between the government and an aboriginal government) and s. 16(1)(b) (reveal information received in confidence from an aboriginal government) of FIPPA. The applicant later stated that the Ministry must disclose the information, as it was “clearly in the public interest” to do so under s. 25. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the information under ss. 16(1)(a) or (b), and that s. 25 did not apply to the records.

An applicant requested access to records about the preparation of affidavits for a court action. The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA, to either confirm or deny the existence of the records on the grounds that disclosure of their existence would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed that the LSBC was authorized to rely on s. 8(2)(b).

The applicant requested a list describing the subject matters of briefing notes. The Ministry refused to disclose some descriptions under ss. 3(1)(h) (outside scope of Act), 12 (cabinet confidences), 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision regarding ss. 3(1)(h) and 14. She also confirmed its decision regarding s. 13(1), with the exception of eight of the descriptions. She found that s. 16(1)(b) applied to only five of the eight, and the other three must be disclosed to the applicant. There was no need to consider ss. 12 or 22.

An applicant requested information about Immediate Roadside Prohibitions that the Tofino RCMP issued during a particular period of time. The Ministry provided the responsive records and withheld some information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence from a federal government agency) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized under s. 14 and required under s. 22 to withhold the information. The adjudicator, therefore, did not have to consider whether s. 16(1)(b) applied to the records.

The applicant requested records about a proposed Ministry policy regarding damage to the reputation of employees during legal proceedings. The Ministry disclosed some information, but it withheld other information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 12 (cabinet confidences), s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information from the records under ss. 13 and 14. Given that finding, there was no need to also consider ss. 12 and 22.

Under s. 42(1)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the Commissioner authorizes the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) to indirectly collect the email and/or mailing addresses of approximately 74 individuals for the purpose of contacting those individuals as recommended in the Ombudsperson’s April 6, 2017 report: Misfire: The 2012 Ministry of Health Employment Terminations and Related Matters (Misfire Report).

Under s. 42(1)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the Commissioner authorizes the Ministry of Health to indirectly collect the name, date of birth, gender, contact information, and personal health number of a person from an individual who has a close relationship with, or a responsibility for the health and well-being of, that person for the purpose of registering that person on a primary care waitlist established and maintained by HealthLink BC.

An applicant requested records from the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC). Specifically, he wanted information about the person he had nominated for a CPABC fellowship. CPABC refused to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 13 applied and confirmed CPABC’s decision to refuse to disclose the information under that exception. There was no need to make a decision regarding s. 22.

Applicants requested information about a settlement agreement between the City of Vancouver and an individual who had been wrongfully incarcerated. The City provided the responsive records but withheld most of the information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), s. 21 (harm to business interests of a third party), s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and under common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized under s. 14 of FIPPA and under common law settlement privilege to withhold the information. Given these findings, the adjudicator did not have to consider whether ss. 17, 21 or 22 applied to the records.

The applicant requested all records relating to ICBC’s 2016 Hall of Shame/Anti-Fraud campaign. ICBC refused to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision.

The applicant requested information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) about the suspension of three physicians’ hospital privileges. VIHA refused to disclose the information pursuant to s. 51 of the Evidence Act and ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 51 did not apply to the records but confirmed VIHA’s decisions regarding most of the information withheld under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator concluded that s. 17 did not apply to the records.

This report examines how ICBC shares the personal information of millions of British Columbians.

The applicant corporation made a request to the City of Parksville (City) for records relating to the City's decision to undertake litigation against the applicant. The City refused to disclose portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal local body confidences under s.12(3)(b), advice or recommendations under s. 13(1), solicitor client privileged information under s. 14 or would unreasonably invade third party privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the City could withhold some but not all of the information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1) and 14 of FIPPA. As a result of these findings, it was not necessary for the adjudicator to consider whether s. 22 applied.

The applicant requested the names of all donors who donated over $3,000 to the University of Victoria between October 1, 2015 and September 15, 2016, along with the amount they donated. The University provided some information to the applicant, but withheld other information pursuant to ss. 17(1) (harm to financial interests), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party), and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the University was authorized under s. 17 of FIPPA to withhold some of the information and required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose other information. A small amount of information was ordered to be disclosed to the applicant. Given the findings, it was not necessary to also consider s. 21.

An applicant requested a review of the Ministry of Finance?s decision to refuse access under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to a number of emails. She alleged that privilege did not apply because the government engaged in unlawful conduct. The applicant also argued that the Ministry of Finance must disclose the withheld information under s. 25 of FIPPA, as it was clearly in the public interest for this information to be released. The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply to the records and the Ministry of Finance was authorized to withhold the information under s. 14. The adjudicator was also not convinced that the Ministry of Finance had sought to advance conduct which it knew or should have known is unlawful.

Order F16-24 authorized a crown agency to disregard access requests from the applicant over and above one access request at a time. The agency was later dissolved and its assets were transferred to the government pursuant to s. 68(1)(b) of the Private Training Act. The applicant subsequently made an access request under FIPPA to the Ministry. The Ministry disregarded the access request; relying on Order F16-24. The Ministry argued that Order F16-24 was an asset which was transferred to it by s. 68(1)(b) of the Private Training Act. The adjudicator found that Order F16-24 was not an asset within the meaning of the Private Training Act. The Ministry was required to respond to the applicant’s access request.

A patient of a clinic run by the public body complained that a clinic manager used her personal information for a purpose inconsistent with, or other than, the purpose for which it was obtained or compiled, contrary to s. 32(a) of FIPPA. The adjudicator held that the public body failed to comply with s. 32(a) and ordered it to stop using the complainant?s personal information in contravention of s. 32(a).

An employee requested his personnel file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The City of Surrey (City) disclosed many records but also withheld information related to its investigation of his off-duty conduct under several exceptions in FIPPA: ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations); 15(1) (harm to law enforcement); 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations); 17(1) (harm to public body?s financial or economic interests); 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety); and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 16(1)(b) applied to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that ss. 15(1)(a) and (d), 17(1), 19(1)(a) and (b) and 22(1) did not apply to the remaining withheld information and ordered that the City disclose this information to the employee.

An applicant requested development permit drawings for a proposed development in the Township of Langley (Langley). Langley denied access to the drawings under ss. 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that neither exception applied and ordered Langley to disclose the drawings to the applicant.

The complainant requested that the Interior Health Authority waive its fees for records related to emergency department closures. The adjudicator found that the records related to a matter of public interest within s. 75(5)(b) and that the applicant was entitled to a fee waiver.

An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) to records related to her and her employment for a specified time period. The Ministry withheld information in the records on the basis ss. 13(1), 15(1)(g) and/or s. 22(1) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply to the records since the information did not qualify as advice or recommendations, but the Ministry was authorized to withhold some information under s. 15(1)(g) as it was related to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The adjudicator also determined that disclosing some of the information in dispute would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy and the Ministry was required to withhold it under s. 22(1). Lastly, the adjudicator found the Ministry did not fulfill its obligations under s. 22(5) to provide the applicant with a summary of personal information supplied in confidence about the applicant in a particular record and ordered it to do so.

All ministries of the Government of British Columbia and the Office of the Premier (Government) applied for authority under s. 43(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to disregard a number of access requests from the Official Opposition caucus (the Opposition). The BC Government claims it should be given authority to disregard the access requests because they are frivolous or vexatious. The BC Government also argues that it should be allowed to disregard the access requests because it is concerned the Opposition contravened the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) in making the requests. The adjudicator determined that the access requests were not frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b); therefore, the BC Government was not authorized to disregard the access requests. The adjudicator also declined to consider whether there was a PIPA violation under a s. 43(b) FIPPA application. She concluded that it was not appropriate for a public body to bypass the PIPA complaint process through a s. 43 FIPPA application.

A professor made two requests for records related to an investigation and to certain communications about him. The University of Victoria gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University of Victoria’s decision to refuse the applicant access under ss. 14 and 22.

An applicant requested sections of autopsy reports related to four Vancouver addresses, for the period 2002-2018, showing if the BC Coroners Service (BCCS) conducted specified tests. The BCCS withheld the 18 reports in question under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that the reports do not contain the requested information and that they are therefore not responsive to the request. There was no need to conduct the s. 22(1) analysis or issue an order.

Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH) failed to respond to an applicant’s access requests within the timelines required by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The director found that VCH had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified deadline.

The District of Kent (District) applied for authorization under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to disregard 59 outstanding access requests that the respondent made to the District. The District also sought relief relating to any future access requests made by the respondent. During the inquiry, the respondent withdrew most of her access requests. The adjudicator found that the remaining outstanding access requests were not frivolous or vexatious (s. 43(b)) and would not unreasonably interfere with the District’s operations because of the repetitious or systematic nature of the requests (s. 43(a)). The adjudicator concluded that relief under s. 43 was not warranted in this case.

Summary: An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to her son’s hospital file. The Interior Health Authority (IHA) disclosed much of the file, but withheld some information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that the information related almost exclusively to third parties and confirmed that s. 22(1) applies to the information in dispute.

The applicant made requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Citizens’ Services (Ministries) for access to records containing any and all allegations made by a named individual against the applicant, either in writing or in an audio recording. The Ministries released the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some records and information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested a review of the Ministries’ decisions. The adjudicator concluded that the Ministries were required to refuse to disclose some of the disputed information under s. 22(1), including most of two audio recordings, but were required to disclose the balance of the disputed information to the applicant.

The applicant requested a variety of information from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.

An applicant requested records from the City of Vancouver (City) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) related to three “rezoning enquiries” covering the period from April 2016 to January 2019. The City disclosed records, severing information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system), 17(1) (harm to economic interests of public body) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The applicant disputed that severing and also complained that the City interpreted his request too narrowly and did not conduct an adequate search for the responsive records. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some information. The adjudicator also found that s. 13(1) did not apply to other information and ordered the City to disclose it. It was not necessary to consider s. 13(1) for some information or to consider ss. 17(1) and 15(1)(l) at all. Finally, the adjudicator found that the City complied with its duty under s. 6(1) to interpret the request and conduct an adequate search.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) for access to records relating to a contract for parking management services between Imperial Parking Canada Corporation (Impark) and the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). PHSA decided to disclose the records, except for some minimal information it decided it was required to withhold under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) and s. 21 (harm to third-party business interests). Impark requested a review of PHSA’s decision, arguing that more information should be withheld under s. 21. The adjudicator confirmed PHSA’s decision in part and concluded that it is required to refuse the applicant access to some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s. 21.

An applicant requested the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) provide records relating to public opinion polls conducted from January to September 2020. The Ministry provided records but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to some but not all of the information. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose some of the information.

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.

An individual and his company complained about the BC Housing Management Commission’s decision to assess and charge a fee under the category of a “commercial applicant” and to deny a full or partial waiver of that fee. The adjudicator confirmed the BC Housing Management Commission’s decision to assess a fee for the actual costs of its allowable services because the applicants qualified as commercial applicants. However, the adjudicator concluded that it would be fair under s. 75(5)(a) to excuse the applicants from paying the estimated fee given the circumstances.

The applicant company has been involved in litigation with the Hood Point Improvement District, for which Bowen Island is acting as Receiver. The applicant requested records relating to a specific construction tender process, which was the subject of the litigation against HPID. The HPID estimated a fee of $3,500 and required the applicant to pay the entire estimate before responding, on the basis that the applicant is a “commercial applicant”. The applicant is a commercial applicant. Bowen Island can only charge the actual costs of the services listed in the FOI Regulation.

Applicant, a teacher employed by the public body, requested copies of letters about applicant written by parents. Public body correctly released the substance of third parties’ letters to the applicant but properly refused under s. 22 to disclose their identifying information. However, the public body failed to respond in the time permitted by the Act.

Applicant requested records relating to the decision to make her position redundant during a major downsizing of the Ministry’s operations. Applicant made a second request concerning consultations between the Ministry and the union representing employees affected by the downsizing. The Ministry did not meet its duty to assist with respect to the first request but did so after the close of inquiry. The Ministry did meet its duty to assist with respect to the second request

Noe summary availabl

Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH) failed to respond to an applicant’s access requests within the timelines required by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The director found that VCH had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified deadline.

Thompson Rivers University failed to respond to an applicant’s access request within the timelines required by Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that Thompson Rivers University had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified deadline.

Thompson Rivers University failed to respond to an applicant’s access requests within the timelines required by Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that Thompson Rivers University had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access requests by a specified deadline.

Three applicants made a total of five requests to the District of Summerland (the District) for access to a variety of records. The applicants claimed the District did not respond to their access requests without delay as required under ss. 6 and 7 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the District’s alleged failure to respond to their access requests in accordance with the legislated response times. The adjudicator determined the District did not perform its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 to respond without delay, in accordance with the required statutory deadlines. The District was ordered to provide a response to the applicants’ five access requests by certain set dates.

All ministries of the Government of British Columbia and the Office of the Premier (Government) applied for authority under s. 43(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to disregard a number of access requests from the Official Opposition caucus (the Opposition). The BC Government claims it should be given authority to disregard the access requests because they are frivolous or vexatious. The BC Government also argues that it should be allowed to disregard the access requests because it is concerned the Opposition contravened the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) in making the requests. The adjudicator determined that the access requests were not frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b); therefore, the BC Government was not authorized to disregard the access requests. The adjudicator also declined to consider whether there was a PIPA violation under a s. 43(b) FIPPA application. She concluded that it was not appropriate for a public body to bypass the PIPA complaint process through a s. 43 FIPPA application.

The applicant requested that the Commissioner order the public body to respond to her access request as required by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that the public body had not responded to the request in accordance with FIPPA and ordered it to do so.

This guidebook will help ensure your time extension application includes all the relevant information the OIPC needs to process and review your request.

The applicant complained that the Ministry of Health (Ministry) had failed to respond in time to his request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the Order of the Provincial Health Officer of September 10, 2021. The Ministry conceded that it had not met its duty under s. 6(1) of FIPPA to respond without delay and had not complied with its duty under s. 7 to respond within legislated time lines. The adjudicator agreed and ordered the Ministry to respond no later than April 29, 2022.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested records from the University of British Columbia (UBC). Approximately six months later, UBC still had not provided the applicant with a response. The applicant asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review UBC’s failure to respond to his access request as required under FIPPA. The adjudicator found that UBC had failed to fulfil its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA and ordered it to respond to the applicant by a set date.

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 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 Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) related to a highway improvement project. The Ministry extended the time for responding to the applicant’s request by 20 days, citing its authority to do so under s. 10 of FIPPA. The applicant made a complaint about this time extension to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The adjudicator decided that s. 10(1)(c) authorized the Ministry to extend the time limit for responding to the applicant’s access request by 20 days in the circumstances. Accordingly, the adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s time limit extension.

Three applicants made a total of five requests to the District of Summerland (the District) for access to a variety of records. The applicants claimed the District did not respond to their access requests without delay as required under ss. 6 and 7 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the District’s alleged failure to respond to their access requests in accordance with the legislated response times. The adjudicator determined the District did not perform its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 to respond without delay, in accordance with the required statutory deadlines. The District was ordered to provide a response to the applicants’ five access requests by certain set dates.

Thompson Rivers University failed to respond to an applicant’s access requests within the timelines required by Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that Thompson Rivers University had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access requests by a specified deadline.

Thompson Rivers University failed to respond to an applicant’s access request within the timelines required by Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that Thompson Rivers University had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified deadline.

Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH) failed to respond to an applicant’s access requests within the timelines required by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The director found that VCH had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified deadline.