Sectional Index

An applicant requested the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) provide access to records about birth alerts. The Ministry refused to disclose some information in the records under ss. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and disputed the applicant’s claim that disclosure was required in the public interest under s. 25(1)(b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to refuse access under s. 14 and it was not necessary to decide if s. 13(1) also applied to the same information. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry, pursuant to s. 44(1), to provide the disputed information so the adjudicator could decide if s. 25(1)(b) applied.

Three Indigenous governments had asked the Ministry and several other public bodies to disclose certain information, including personal information, related to COVID-19 and its transmission in their communities. Having had no success, they complained that the Ministry had failed to comply with its duty under section 25(1)(a) of FIPPA to disclose information specified in their complaint. The Commissioner rejected the Ministry’s arguments that, during an emergency, the Public Health Act overrides the Ministry’s duty to comply with the disclosure duty under section 25(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. However, although the Commissioner held that COVID-19 creates a risk of significant harm to the public and to the complainants’ communities, section 25(1)(a) does not in the circumstances require the Ministry to disclose the information that the complainants argue must be disclosed. He concluded that sufficient information is already available to the complainants and to the public to enable the public, and the complainant governments, to take steps to avoid or mitigate risks connected with COVID-19.

The applicant requested that the Vancouver Board of Education provide all records containing information pertaining to the applicant. The Board disclosed some records while withholding others under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (legal advice) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the Board is authorized to refuse to disclose information under s.13 and is required to refuse to disclose the majority of information under s. 22.

The complainant applied for a job with the Ministry and provided the names of references. The Ministry chose to speak to other individuals instead, without advising the complainant or obtaining her consent to do so. The complainant alleged that this was a collection of her personal information contrary to s. 26 and s. 27 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the collection of the personal information in question is not expressly authorized under an Act [s. 26(a)]. Further, while the personal information relates directly to the Ministry’s hiring activities, it is not necessary for that activity [s. 26(c)]. The adjudicator also considered the manner in which the personal information was collected and found that the indirect collection was not authorized under the provisions claimed by the Ministry [ss. 27(1)(a)(iii) and 27(1)(b) in combination with ss. 33.1(1)(c) and (e) and ss. 33.2 (a), (c) and (d)]. The adjudicator orders the Ministry to stop collecting personal information in contravention of FIPPA and to destroy the personal information collected.

The applicant requested information about herself held by BC Ferries, particularly information related to an incident that occurred during her work as an equipment operator. BC Ferries withheld information claiming ss. 13, 15, 19 and 22 of FIPPA exemptions. With the exception of its reliance on s. 13 and a few pages that must be disclosed, BC Ferries properly applied disclosure exemptions to the record.

An applicant requested access to reports that the City of Port Alberni (City) received from SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. (SLR) about land that the City sought to purchase from Western Forest Products Inc. (WFP). SLR and WFP objected to disclosure, arguing that s. 21(1) (disclosure harmful to a third party’s business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) applies to most of the information in the reports. After considering SLR and WFP’s positions, the City released a small amount of information while severing most of the information under s. 21(1). The adjudicator determined that the City is required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the disputed information under s. 21(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to the applicant.

The College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (College) received a request from an individual who requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the College’s investigation of a pharmacist. The College provided the individual with access to most of the information in the responsive records but withheld some information under various FIPPA exceptions to access. The individual requested a review of the College’s decision. The issues between the parties were eventually narrowed down to the College’s decision to withhold information in a particular record under both s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences) of FIPPA. A central issue between the parties was whether the disputed record qualified as a report under s. 13(2)(k). Except for a small amount of information, the adjudicator found the College correctly applied s. 13(1) to the information at issue and that s. 13(2)(k) did not apply to the disputed record. For the small amount of information that the College was not authorized to withhold under s. 13(1), the adjudicator also found s. 12(3)(b) did not apply to this information and ordered the College to disclose it.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (BCI) for copies of 2014-2015 BCI employee engagement and satisfaction survey reports, including results and analysis. BCI withheld the responsive records and information on the basis of common law case-by-case privilege and ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA is a complete code of exceptions to disclosure abrogating case-by-case privilege, so BCI was not entitled to rely on that privilege as an access exception. The adjudicator then determined that BCI was authorized to withhold most of the disputed information under s. 13(1), but that it was not authorized or required to withhold the balance of the information under the other exceptions BCI applied.

The applicant requested records related to the delegation of the Chief Electoral Officer’s powers and duties under the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. He also requested all memorandums of understanding between the Chief Electoral Officer or Elections BC and any other organization, agency or body. Elections BC refused to disclose the requested records under s. 3(1)(c) of FIPPA (records outside the scope of Act). The adjudicator determined that s. 3(1)(c) applied to an event plan and three memoranda of understanding, but not to job descriptions and a delegation matrix. Elections BC was ordered to respond to the applicant’s request under Part 2 of FIPPA with respect to the job descriptions and the delegation matrix.

Section 25 does not require the Ministry to disclose information in an outsource service contract in the public interest. Section 21(1) does not require the Ministry to refuse to disclose information as claimed by the third-party contractor. The Ministry is obliged to respond to the applicant on the applicability of all exceptions to disclosure, not just s. 21(1), since the third-party review requested by the contractor froze only the Ministry’s duty to respond to the access request for the information that was the subject of the third-party review.

The applicant requested access to records concerning the public body’s response to a complaint relating to the protection of a stream. The public body released records but refused to provide information that would reveal the identity of a third-party complainant. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the disputed information.

In response to its access request to the FHA, the HEU received electronic copies of two consultants’ reports respecting possible private development of a new health centre. The HEU was able to uncover information the FHA believed it had severed from the electronic copies under s. 17(1). The HEU posted on its website copies of the consultant’s reports with instructions enabling viewers to recover information the FHA believed had been severed. The HEU requested a review of the FHA decision to refuse access to information in the consultant’s reports. The FHA was authorized to refuse access under s. 17(1) and its decision to do so is confirmed. After the FHA’s faulty severing of information, there is risk of harm under s. 17(1) against which the FHA is authorized to protect itself by refusing access to the disputed information.

The applicant requested access through the Internet to live webcam video feeds of two beehive burners. One of the Ministry’s regional managers is able to view the live feeds, which arrive over the Internet, on his computer. As the webcam feeds are live and image data is not recorded or stored, the data comprising the live feeds are not a “record” as defined in the Act. Since the Act only applies to records, the webcam feeds are not subject to the right of access

Applicant, who was formerly investigated by BCSC, sought access to BCSC files about its (now closed) investigation. BCSC was entitled to withhold information that would identify confidential informants and was required to withhold third party personal information compiled as part of its investigation into a possible violation of law.

Applicant entitled to access to some records over which City claimed solicitor client privilege, but not others. City provided no evidence to support counsel's assertion that solicitor client privilege applied to certain records. Absent supporting evidence, certain records did not themselves support City's assertions. City entitled to withhold some records under s. 12(3)(b), but not others. City found not to have performed its duty under s. 6 (1) and required to search again for records.

Applicant’s signing of a contractual release and waiver in favour of public body did not preclude applicant from making subsequent access request for records related to him or excuse public body from responding. Public policy dictates that rights and obligations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act cannot be waived by contract. Public body was required to respond to applicant’s access request, which it had done, but applicant was not entitled to have access to records covered by s. 14. It was not necessary to consider s. 22 issues relating to records protected by s. 14.

Public body complied with its duty to applicant under s. 6(1) in its search for a specific individual’s “job description”. Public body found, but did not provide applicant with, a “classification questionnaire”, a record with a different name that set out the functions and duties of the person’s position as it was in 1995.

Applicant trade union sought access to contracts between public body and two health care service providers. Public body withheld global contract amounts, hourly rates and other breakdowns of global contract amounts. Disputed information had been negotiated and not “supplied” within the meaning of s. 21(1)(b). Public body not required to refuse access and also not required to withhold information where a previous contractor was no longer in business. Section 21(1) not available to protect new company that employs a principal and shareholder of previous contractor.

Applicant sought records relating to him, and a legal opinion about him, in Ministry’s custody. Ministry authorized to withhold information under s. 14. Ministry not authorized to withhold information under s. 17(1), but Ministry required to withhold same information under s. 22.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

The applicant requested information from the City of Vancouver related to the rezoning of the property surrounding Crofton Manor, a senior’s care facility in the City. The City disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under s. 21 in part, and its decision under s. 22 in full, and ordered the City to disclose some information incorrectly withheld under s. 21 to the applicant.

Three Indigenous governments had asked the Ministry and several other public bodies to disclose certain information, including personal information, related to COVID-19 and its transmission in their communities. Having had no success, they complained that the Ministry had failed to comply with its duty under section 25(1)(a) of FIPPA to disclose information specified in their complaint. The Commissioner rejected the Ministry’s arguments that, during an emergency, the Public Health Act overrides the Ministry’s duty to comply with the disclosure duty under section 25(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. However, although the Commissioner held that COVID-19 creates a risk of significant harm to the public and to the complainants’ communities, section 25(1)(a) does not in the circumstances require the Ministry to disclose the information that the complainants argue must be disclosed. He concluded that sufficient information is already available to the complainants and to the public to enable the public, and the complainant governments, to take steps to avoid or mitigate risks connected with COVID-19.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

A BC Transit driver requested the dates of hire of his fellow drivers to pursue a dispute with his union over seniority lists. BC Transit refused access to the information under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the dates of hire and ordered BC Transit to refuse access to them.

The British Columbia Securities Commission applied for authorization to disregard the respondent’s request for records and any similar requests he may make in the future because they are frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the access request and any similar future requests are not frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b). The application was dismissed.

A journalist requested a list of the names, current certificate status and current practicing status of all teachers registered with the College. The College withheld the information under ss. 20(1) and 22 of FIPPA on the grounds that the information was already publicly available through a searchable database on its website and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the teachers’ privacy. Section 20(1) does not apply because the list of names is not available for purchase by the public. Section 22 does not apply because disclosure is authorized by the Teaching Profession Act and the information at issue consists of a discretionary benefit similar to a licence. The College must disclose the list including all of the fields, and in the electronic format, he has requested. The College is not required to notify individual teachers about the disclosure.

The applicants obtained an arbitrator’s award, under the Residential Tenancy Act, for rent and utilities owed by their former tenant. They asked the Ministry for her new address to collect the money owed under the award, but the Ministry refused under s. 22(1). None of the s. 22(3) presumed unreasonable invasions of personal privacy applies here. It is relevant that the address was supplied in confidence to the arbitrator, but it is also relevant to a fair determination of the applicants’ legal rights. The Ministry is not required to refuse access, there being no unreasonable invasion of privacy in this case.

The applicant school trustee requested copies of invoices from a law firm that was acting for the School District in a particular litigation matter. The School District was authorized to refuse access under s. 14. The applicant’s position as a trustee of the School District does not give him special rights of access under the Act.

Applicant requested records related to communications regarding a legal action between himself, on his son’s behalf, and ICBC. ICBC disclosed records but applicant not satisfied with ICBC’s search. ICBC searched again, disclosed more records and withheld others under s. 14. ICBC found to have misinterpreted request and to have failed to conduct a proper search. ICBC found to have later rectified its failure to interpret the request reasonably, but some records it found and considered still out of scope were in fact subject to the request. ICBC ordered to process additional responsive records. ICBC also found to have withheld records properly under s. 14

Applicant sought records relating to him, and a legal opinion about him, in Ministry’s custody. Ministry authorized to withhold information under s. 14. Ministry not authorized to withhold information under s. 17(1), but Ministry required to withhold same information under s. 22.

Applicant sought access to records that contained personal information of a woman whom the applicant had pleaded guilty to having harassed criminally, under the Criminal Code, in 1995. Ministry’s refusal to disclose parts of the records authorized by ss.15(1)(g) and 19(1)(a). Ministry required to refuse to disclose personal information under s. 22(1). Not necessary to deal with Ministry’s reliance on s. 16.

WCB withheld records dealing with WCB policy on payment of interest to employers when refunding to employers certain contribution overpayments. WCB withheld information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 17(1). WCB authorized to withhold record under first two sections, but not s. 17(1). No reasonable expectation of harm to WCB’s financial or economic interests on basis information might be used by third parties in litigation against WCB. Section 13(1) in any case found to protect information to which WCB applied s. 17(1).

No summary available.

No summary available

No summary available.

No summary available

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

An applicant requested records relating to conditional water licences from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). The Ministry provided the applicant with partial access to the responsive records but withheld some information in the records relying on several different exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined the Ministry properly applied s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) to withhold the information at issue. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized to withhold some, but not all, of the information at issue under ss. 15(1)(l) (security of a communications system) and 18(a) (harm to the conservation of heritage sites). The adjudicator also determined the Ministry was required to withhold most, but not all, of the information at issue under s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). Lastly, the adjudicator found that s. 3(5)(a) applies to some of the records at issue, thus they fall outside the scope of FIPPA.

The Ministry of Health requested the Commissioner exercise his discretion, under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to decline holding an inquiry into its decision to refuse an applicant access to two requested records. Among other things, the Ministry of Health argued an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that it does not have custody or control of those records. The adjudicator found it was plain and obvious the records sought by the applicant were not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry and, therefore, fall outside the scope of FIPPA. As a result, the adjudicator allowed the Ministry of Health’s s. 56(1) application and the upcoming inquiry was cancelled.

In a court-approved partial reconsideration of Order F23-07, the adjudicator determined that s. 3(3)(a) applies to the records at issue, thus they fall outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Therefore, the applicant has no right to access those records under FIPPA.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to emails, including “the header and all metadata attached”, between BCIT and its employee group benefits provider. In response, BCIT said the requested records are not in its custody or under its control, within the meaning of ss. 3(1) (scope of FIPPA) and 4(1) (information rights). The adjudicator determined that none of the records are in BCIT’s custody. However, the adjudicator determined that some, but not all, of the records are under BCIT’s control.

A journalist asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for records related to a news release on fraud cases that ICBC had investigated. ICBC disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). ICBC later argued that many of the records were court records and thus excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(a) (now s. 3(3)(a)). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information in dispute (drivers’ names and court and police file numbers) and ordered ICBC to refuse the journalist access to this information. The adjudicator also found that the issue of whether s. 3(1)(a) applies to some of the records was moot, as ICBC had already disclosed them in severed form.

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.

The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself 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 third-party 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.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board (Board) for records relating to an investigation into the conduct of a former chief of the Victoria Police Department. The Board provided the applicant with responsive records severed under ss. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of FIPPA), 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA, as well as common law settlement privilege. The applicant withdrew his request for review of the records and information withheld under ss. 12(3)(b), 15(1)(l) and 22(1). The adjudicator confirmed the Board’s decision under s. 3(1)(c), determined that the Board was authorized to refuse to disclose some but not all of the information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 14, and found it unnecessary to consider settlement privilege.

The applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investigation that led to the well known 2012 Ministry employee firings. The Ministry provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This order considers ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 applied, and that s. 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that she found s. 22 did not apply to.

The British Columbia Assessment Authority (BC Assessment) applied for an order that the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to decline to conduct an inquiry in this matter. BC Assessment argued that an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that the records requested by the access applicant are available for purchase by the public and are, therefore, outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(j). The adjudicator decided that the matter will not proceed to an inquiry because it is plain and obvious that s. 3(1)(j) applies to the requested record.

The applicant made four requests to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to records relating to group benefit plans provided by BCIT to its employees and administered by a third-party company. BCIT determined that the records were not in its custody or under its control and, therefore, not within the applicant’s access rights under ss. 3(1) and 4(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). BCIT also argued that some of the records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(k). The adjudicator found that the records were not in BCIT’s custody or under its control and that it was not necessary to also consider s. 3(1)(k).

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.

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.

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.

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).

UBC refused access to the rubric, criteria and scoring instructions it uses to assess the personal profiles of prospective students under ss. 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(e) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 17 (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 3(1)(d) and (e) did not apply, and the records were within the scope of FIPPA. The adjudicator also found that the information in dispute was not advice or recommendations under s. 13 and that disclosure could not reasonably be expected to harm UBC’s financial or economic interests under s. 17. UBC was ordered to disclose the requested information.

In Order F14-32 it was held that the Ministry was not authorized to sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that those portions were “out of scope of request”. The Ministry sought a reconsideration of Order F14-32 on that issue. FIPPA does not authorize the Ministry to withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that they are outside the scope of the applicant’s request. It is ordered to consider the request as it relates to those portions and disclose them except with respect to information to which exceptions to disclosure set out in Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA apply.

The applicant requested access to University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board records related to clinical trials. The adjudicator determined that the responsive records are outside the scope of FIPPA because the records contain research information of UBC researchers under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA.

The applicant requested information about herself held by BC Ferries, particularly information related to an incident that occurred during her work as an equipment operator. BC Ferries withheld information claiming ss. 13, 15, 19 and 22 of FIPPA exemptions. With the exception of its reliance on s. 13 and a few pages that must be disclosed, BC Ferries properly applied disclosure exemptions to the record.

The Office of the Chief Coroner’s request that an inquiry under Part 5 not be held is denied. Any party making an application under s. 56 must do more than simply assert that an exception applies. It must clearly demonstrate that its case meets the criteria established in previous orders. A mere belief that one’s case is strong is not the basis for a s. 56 application.

Commissioner's ruling on jurisdiction to hold an inquiry on records and correspondence submitted to a Special Committee of the Legislative Assembly held by the Office of the Clerk of Committees of the Legislative Assembly.

Applicant sought access to information from the commissioner under the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, who declined to respond on the basis that he was not a public body under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Although an “officer of the Legislative Assembly” under the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, the conflict commissioner is designated as a public body under paragraph (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Schedule 1 definition of “public body”. He is not excluded by reference to “the office of a person who is a member or officer of the Legislative Assembly” in paragraph (d) of that definition. Conflict commissioner ordered to respond to applicant’s access request.

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.

The Ministry of Forests (Ministry) requested the Commissioner exercise their discretion, under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to decline to hold an inquiry into the Ministry’s decision to refuse an applicant access to a requested record. The Ministry argued that an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that it does not have custody or control of the requested record. The adjudicator found that it was not plain and obvious that the Ministry did not have custody or control of the requested record. Therefore, the adjudicator dismissed the Ministry’s s. 56(1) application and directed the matter to an inquiry.

The Ministry of Health requested the Commissioner exercise his discretion, under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to decline holding an inquiry into its decision to refuse an applicant access to two requested records. Among other things, the Ministry of Health argued an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that it does not have custody or control of those records. The adjudicator found it was plain and obvious the records sought by the applicant were not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry and, therefore, fall outside the scope of FIPPA. As a result, the adjudicator allowed the Ministry of Health’s s. 56(1) application and the upcoming inquiry was cancelled.

In a court-approved partial reconsideration of Order F23-07, the adjudicator determined that s. 3(3)(a) applies to the records at issue, thus they fall outside the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Therefore, the applicant has no right to access those records under FIPPA.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the District of Lantzville (District) for copies of texts to and from a named District councillor regarding District matters. The District withheld the responsive records on the basis that they are not in its custody or under its control within the meaning of ss. 3(1) and 4(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the records are not in the District’s custody or control under s. 3(1) and therefore FIPPA does not apply.

An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the application and appointment of a specific BC Supreme Court master. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under multiple exceptions to access. In some cases, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information in the responsive records under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. Given their finding on s. 22(1), the adjudicator did not need to consider whether s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) also applied to the same information. The Ministry was ordered to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under FIPPA. The Ministry also argued, and the adjudicator confirmed, that some of the responsive records fell outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(3)(c); therefore, the applicant had no right to access those records under FIPPA.

An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for copies of any peer review reports that certain faculty members may have received from academic journals. TRU denied access under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA, on the grounds that the records were the research materials of its faculty members. The adjudicator found that the records were the research materials of its faculty members and outside the scope of FIPPA.

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 a researcher living in a foreign country. TRU denied access under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA, on the grounds that the records were the research materials of its faculty member. The adjudicator found that TRU failed to meet its burden of establishing that the records were the research materials of its faculty member and ordered TRU to disclose them.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to emails, including “the header and all metadata attached”, between BCIT and its employee group benefits provider. In response, BCIT said the requested records are not in its custody or under its control, within the meaning of ss. 3(1) (scope of FIPPA) and 4(1) (information rights). The adjudicator determined that none of the records are in BCIT’s custody. However, the adjudicator determined that some, but not all, of the records are under BCIT’s control.

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.

The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself 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 third-party 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.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board (Board) for records relating to an investigation into the conduct of a former chief of the Victoria Police Department. The Board provided the applicant with responsive records severed under ss. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of FIPPA), 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA, as well as common law settlement privilege. The applicant withdrew his request for review of the records and information withheld under ss. 12(3)(b), 15(1)(l) and 22(1). The adjudicator confirmed the Board’s decision under s. 3(1)(c), determined that the Board was authorized to refuse to disclose some but not all of the information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 14, and found it unnecessary to consider settlement privilege.

The applicant made four requests to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to records relating to group benefit plans provided by BCIT to its employees and administered by a third-party company. BCIT determined that the records were not in its custody or under its control and, therefore, not within the applicant’s access rights under ss. 3(1) and 4(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). BCIT also argued that some of the records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(k). The adjudicator found that the records were not in BCIT’s custody or under its control and that it was not necessary to also consider s. 3(1)(k).

In a re-opened inquiry, the adjudicator considered whether two records related to the City of White Rock connecting to the Metro Vancouver Regional District?s water supply were in the custody or under the control of the City of White Rock. The adjudicator found that they were not.

UBC refused a journalist access to the rubric, criteria and scoring instructions it uses to assess the personal profiles of prospective students under ss. 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(e) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 17 (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body) of FIPPA. Order F15-49 held that none of those provisions applied and ordered the University to disclose the records. UBC filed a petition for judicial review of the part of Order F15-49 that dealt with ss. 3(1)(d) and 17. The Court of Appeal quashed the ss. 3(1)(d) and 17 orders and remitted the matter back, and this is the resulting decision. The adjudicator finds that the records are outside the scope of FIPPA because s. 3(1)(d) applies. Given that FIPPA does not apply, the adjudicator declines to consider whether s. 17 applies.

An applicant requested EasyPark's 2010-2015 financial statements and records showing its directors' names, remuneration and expenses. The applicant said that disclosure of the records is clearly in the public interest under s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override). The City of Vancouver (City) refused access to the financial statements under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party financial interests). It also said that EasyPark was not a public body and that the records related to EasyPark's directors were not in its custody or under its control. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the financial statements and ordered the City to disclose them. Finally, the adjudicator found that EasyPark is not a public body, that the City does not control EasyPark and that the records related to EasyPark's directors are not in the custody or under the control of the City.

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.

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.

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.

A journalist requested access to minutes, agendas and correspondence of four directors of the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (“VANOC”). The adjudicator found that the requested records are not in the custody or under the control of the public bodies.

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).

This is a rehearing of part of Order F11-28, which concerned email correspondence between BCLC’s then chief executive officer and its former director and chair. The former director and chair argued that certain email correspondence requested by an applicant did not fall within the scope of FIPPA, so FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that BCLC had “custody” of the responsive records within the meaning of s. 3(1) of FIPPA, so the records were within the scope of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to comply with the terms of Order F11-28.

A journalist requested copies of the electronic calendar of the Minister of Transportation for two years. The Ministry provided copies of printouts of the calendars for the two MLAs who were Ministers during that period, but withheld portions under ss. 17 (economic harm) and 22 (personal privacy) of FIPPA. It also withheld entries relating to MLA activities as being outside the scope of FIPPA. The journalist challenged the decision with respect to the entries relating to MLA activities. The Ministry argued that each electronic entry in the calendar was a separate record and the entries relating to MLA activities were not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry. The adjudicator found that each entry was not a separate record: the calendars the Ministry produced were two records (one for each Minister) that were in the custody and under the control of the Ministry. These Ministry records happened to contain information about MLA activities. The Ministry also argued that some entries were records created by or for an officer of the legislature and were outside the scope of FIPPA in accordance with s. 3(1)(c). The records were not created by or for the Ombudsperson. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to complete the processing of the request with respect to the information it had incorrectly withheld as outside the scope of FIPPA.

A journalist requested records from UBC relating to seven entities. UBC was able to provide some records and a few others were publicly available but for the most part UBC argued that it did not have custody and control of the requested records. Order F09-06 found UBC to have control of the requested records with respect to three of the entities. The Order was subject to a judicial review that led to a consent order to the effect that the OIPC would reconsider the question as to whether UBC had custody or control of the records of the three entities. In the meantime, a judicial review of Order F08-01 found that the relationship between SFU and its subsidiaries did not meet the common law test for piercing the corporate veil, and, therefore, SFU did not exercise control over the records. In this case, the relationship between UBC and the three entities does not meet the common law test for piercing the corporate veil. UBC does not exercise control over the records for the purpose of FIPPA.

Applicant requested access to records from an investigation into human rights complaints against him. The PHSA disclosed some records and withheld others under s. 3(1)(b) and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. It also took the position that some pages were not in its custody or control. Section 3(1)(b) found not to apply and PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a decision on entitlement to access respecting those pages. Section 51 of the Evidence Act found to apply to other pages. PHSA found to have custody and control of certain pages and ordered to provide applicant with a decision on access regarding those pages. Section 22 found to apply to some information and not to other information. PHSA ordered to provide the applicant with access to information to which s. 22 was found not to apply.

The applicant requested records from UBC relating to seven entities. UBC was able to provide some records and a few others were publicly available but for the most part UBC argued that the entities had custody and control of the requested records; it did not. UBC is found to have control of the requested records with respect to three of the entities and is ordered to respond to the applicant in respect of those access requests. All three bodies were entities created and owned 100% by UBC and accountable to it.

The applicant requested information relating to two “spin-off companies” in the possession of SFU’s University/Industry Liaison office. SFU initially took the position that the records were in its custody and control but later changed its position and said that the records were within the custody and control of its wholly-owned subsidiary, SFUV. The records are within SFU’s control and SFU is ordered to discharge its obligations as a public body to the applicant and to third parties.

The Office of the Chief Coroner’s request that an inquiry under Part 5 not be held is denied. Any party making an application under s. 56 must do more than simply assert that an exception applies. It must clearly demonstrate that its case meets the criteria established in previous orders. A mere belief that one’s case is strong is not the basis for a s. 56 application.

The applicant requested access to records relating to a public report on offshore oil and gas exploration prepared for the Minister of Energy and Mines by a panel of three scientific experts. For records in the possession of the Ministry, s. 12(1) applied to a small amount of information, ss. 13(1) and 16(1) applied to some other information and s. 25(1) did not apply. Some information in these records was also incorrectly withheld as not responsive to request but may be withheld under ss. 13(1) and 16(1). Records in the possession of panel members or the panel secretariat are under the control of the Ministry and subject to an access request under the Act.

Applicant requested access to records related to himself in the public body’s security and infection control areas. PHSA correctly refused access to information under s. 14 and for the most part under s. 22. PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a few items of information withheld under s. 22 and with summary under s. 22(5). A few pages are not in PHSA’s custody or control. Other pages are in PHSA’s control and it is ordered to process them under the Act.

The applicant requested records relating to the review by two experts of an appraisal conducted by the applicant. The City conducted an adequate search for records. It does not have control over records in the custody of the two experts. The City did not fail in its duty to assist under s. 6 as a result of not requesting that the two experts provide a copy of their records for release to the applicant.

The applicant is an employee of the public body and was the target of a harassment complaint by a co-worker. The applicant made an access request for a contract investigator’s notes of investigation of the complaint. The notes are under the control of the public body, which is required to comply with the Act by processing the access request.

The applicant requested access through the Internet to live webcam video feeds of two beehive burners. One of the Ministry’s regional managers is able to view the live feeds, which arrive over the Internet, on his computer. As the webcam feeds are live and image data is not recorded or stored, the data comprising the live feeds are not a “record” as defined in the Act. Since the Act only applies to records, the webcam feeds are not subject to the right of access

The applicant made an access request to the WCB for records related to the evaluation of proposals that contractors submitted to a society in response to a request for proposals the society had issued. The WCB disclosed portions of some records that it possessed, but said that other responsive records, which the society had in its possession, were not in the WCB’s custody or under the WCB’s control. The Act does not apply to those other records, as the WCB does not have control of them.

The applicant requested a list of all investments held by the University and by the Foundation. The University does not have custody or control of the requested Foundation records.

No summary available

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

Two applicants requested a copy of the notes that a family justice counsellor created as part of a court-ordered Custody and Access Report for a family court proceeding involving the custody of the applicants’ grandchildren. The Ministry disclosed the notes of the interview with the applicants but withheld the notes of the interviews of third parties under s. 22(1). The Ministry also claimed that the records were subject to s. 3(1)(a) because, in its view, the notes related to a support service provided to the judge who ordered the report. The applicants reduced the scope of their request to exclude the personal information of third parties, except for the identities of individuals who made comments or expressed opinions about the applicants. The report and the notes do not relate to a support service provided to the judge and s. 3(1)(a) does not apply. Section 22(1) does not apply to information solely about the applicants or to the identities of individuals who made comments solely about the applicants that can be inferred from those comments. Ministry ordered to disclose this information.

The applicant requested copies of court decisions relating to firearms matters and a copy of a file relating to a specific case under the Firearms Act (Canada). Applicant also requested a fee waiver relating to another access request. Court file copies of court decisions are not excluded from the Act under s. 3(1)(a) simply because originals or copies are in court files or as records “of a judge”. The Ministry is entitled to withhold the portions of the firearms reference file that it withheld, and the case law collection, under s. 14. The Ministry also could refuse access to the copies of court decisions because they are available for purchase by the public within the meaning of s. 20(1)(a). The Ministry’s refusal of a public interest fee waiver relating to policy records is also upheld, as is its denial of a waiver on the basis of inability to afford the fee.

Applicant requested correction of copies of various records in the custody of the Criminal Justice Branch. Commissioner rejects CJB’s argument that any copy of a record that is also in a court file is excluded from the Act by s. 3(1)(a). Copies of such records in the custody or under the control of public bodies are covered by the Act. Ministry properly refused applicant’s request for correction of information. Applicant had, in some respects, not requested correction of “personal information”. He also had not clearly specified any requested correction or provided any basis to support any correction.

No summary available

No summary available

No summary available.

An applicant made a request to the Ministry of Education and Child Care (Ministry) for access to records related to the Ministry’s investigation into the applicant’s employment. The Ministry refused access to some information on the basis that FIPPA did not apply to this information or that it fell under one or more of FIPPA’s exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that s. 61(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act (personal note, communication or draft decision of a decision-maker) applied to some information and, therefore, that FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator also found that the Ministry had properly applied ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) to withhold some of the information in dispute. However, she found that the Ministry was not authorized to withhold any information under s. 13(1). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.

A mother and her daughter asked for access to records related to the daughter’s grade school education. The Ministry refused access to several records because they were outside the scope of FIPPA and to some information in other records because FIPPA exceptions applied. The adjudicator found that s. 61(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act applied to several records, so FIPPA did not. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to refuse access to information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s.14 (solicitor client privilege), and confirmed, in part, the Ministry’s decision to refuse access to information under s. 22 (harm to third party personal privacy). The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information to which s. 22 did not apply.

The applicant, on behalf of his adult daughter, requested access to records related to the daughter’s claims and appeals before WCAT. WCAT refused to disclose some of the requested information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that some of the records were outside the scope of FIPPA because they were communications and draft decisions of individuals acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, so s. 3(1)(b) applied. Further, WCAT was authorized under s. 13(1) to refuse disclosure of some of the information contained in the records because it was advice or recommendations developed by or for WCAT. The adjudicator also found that WCAT was required to continue to refuse to disclose all of the personal information withheld under s. 22(1).

In the judicial review of Order F09-07, the court set aside the decision that a human rights investigator was acting in a quasi judicial capacity for the purposes of s. 3(1)(b) of FIPPA in carrying out her investigation of a complaint against a doctor. The judge remitted back to the senior adjudicator the question of whether the investigator’s records were her “personal notes” or her “communications” for the purposes of s. 3(1)(b). The senior adjudicator found that the investigator’s introductory notes, notes on agendas and telephone conversations and her outgoing correspondence are her “personal notes” and “communications” for the purposes of s. 3(1)(b). The senior adjudicator found that the other correspondence, including incoming letters and emails to the investigator, and her typed and handwritten interview notes are not her “personal notes” and “communications” and that they are not excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(b). The PHSA is ordered to decide whether the doctor is entitled to access to the information that s. 3(1)(b) does not exclude.

The applicant requested records connected with research proposals he made to the University’s Research Ethics Board. The University argued the records contained the research information of a post-secondary employee and were outside of FIPPA’s jurisdiction because of s. 3(1)(e). Even though the request for the records came from the employee himself, the adjudicator found, with the exception of two legal opinions, he had no authority over them because FIPPA did not apply. The records contained the research information of a post-secondary employee and were therefore excluded from FIPPA under s. 3(1)(e). The Ministry properly withheld the two legal opinions at issue under s. 14 of FIPPA.

The applicant requested records about the Health Centre’s Peer Review Committee examination of a harassment complaint against him. The PHSA refused to disclose the information because it said some records were personal notes and communications of persons acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and others were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator found that s. 3(1)(b) excluded some records from FIPPA’s application while the balance of the records were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

An applicant requested his personal information in a file relating to a coroner’s inquest. The Ministry applied s. 3(1)(b) of FIPPA to the only responsive records, which were the handwritten notes of jurors, on the grounds that the records were created by individuals acting in a quasi judicial capacity. The Ministry also argued the records were subject to s. 64(2)(c) of the Coroners Act, as the notes of a coroner. Section 64(2)(c) of the Coroners Act does not apply, as the notes or jurors are not the notes of a coroner. However s 3(1)(b) of FIPPA applies to the records as they are the personal notes of individuals acting in a quasi judicial capacity.

The applicant requested certain records in the inquest files of two dozen individuals. The Ministry disclosed the Verdict at Coroner‘s Inquest in each case, together with correspondence on the juries‘ recommendations. It withheld a number of records on the basis that they were excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act or, alternatively, under s. 3(1)(b) of FIPPA. It withheld the rest of the records under ss. 15, 16(1)(b) and 22(1). Section 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act does not apply as it was not in effect at the time of the requests or Ministry‘s decision on access. Section 3(1)(b) applies to records related to coroners‘ inquest-related functions but not to other records, including those reflecting administrative activities. Section 3(1)(c) applies to a handful of records, although Ministry did not claim it. Ministry ordered to reconsider its decision to apply s. 16(1)(b) on the grounds that it failed to exercise discretion. It was not necessary to consider s. 15. Section 22(1) found to apply to many but not all other records. Ministry ordered to disclose certain records to which ss. 3(1)(b) and 22(1) do not apply.

Applicant requested access to records from an investigation into human rights complaints against him. The PHSA disclosed some records and withheld others under s. 3(1)(b) and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. It also took the position that some pages were not in its custody or control. Section 3(1)(b) found not to apply and PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a decision on entitlement to access respecting those pages. Section 51 of the Evidence Act found to apply to other pages. PHSA found to have custody and control of certain pages and ordered to provide applicant with a decision on access regarding those pages. Section 22 found to apply to some information and not to other information. PHSA ordered to provide the applicant with access to information to which s. 22 was found not to apply.

The Office of the Chief Coroner’s request that an inquiry under Part 5 not be held is denied. Any party making an application under s. 56 must do more than simply assert that an exception applies. It must clearly demonstrate that its case meets the criteria established in previous orders. A mere belief that one’s case is strong is not the basis for a s. 56 application.

Applicant sought access to minutes of in camera Inquiry Committee meetings and listing of actions related to a complaint filed against him. Committee withheld entirety of responsive records under ss. 3(1)(b), 3(1)(h), 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22. Records withheld under s. 3(1)(b) do not meet required criteria. Committee entitled to withhold only substance of deliberations under s. 12(3)(b). Sections 3(1)(h), 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22 found not to apply. Public body ordered to re-consider its decision to withhold under s. 12(3)(b).

Applicant requested records related to her academic appeal. UBC provided records, withholding other records and information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13(1), 14 and 22. UBC found to have applied ss. 3(1)(b), and 14 properly and, with one exception, s. 22 as well. UBC ordered to disclose some personal information related to applicant. Section 13(1) found not to apply in all cases and UBC ordered to disclose draft letters.

The applicant sought access to various Law Society records related to complaints he had made about various lawyers. Order 02-01 and Order No. 260-1998 addressed many of the records in dispute here and issue estoppel is found to apply to information dealt with in those decisions. In the case of some but not all of the information in other records, the Law Society is authorized to refuse to disclose information subject to s. 14 and is required to refuse to disclose third-party personal information protected by s. 22.

The applicant complained to the College about the conduct of a College member. The College disclosed 140 records from its complaint file, but refused to disclose, in their entirety, 19 records. The College has failed to establish that s. 3(1)(b), s. 12(3)(b) or s. 15(2)(b) apply. It is authorized to refuse disclosure of some information under ss. 13(1) and 14 and is required to refuse disclosure by s. 22(3)(d) and (g). Section 22(1) does not require the College to refuse the applicant access to her own personal information.

Applicant requested copy of draft report of Smith Commission of Inquiry into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Ministry denied access under s. 3(1)(b). Section 25(1)(b) found not to apply to record. Section 3(1)(b) found not to apply as Commissioner Smith was not acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity and record is not a draft decision. Ministry ordered to respond to request under the Act

The applicant requested copies of notes taken by members of a WCB medical review panel constituted and sitting under the Workers Compensation Act. The Ministry correctly decided that the notes are excluded from the Act under s. 3(1)(b).

The applicant requested all records relating to him at the WCRB. The WCRB correctly decided that certain of the responsive records are excluded from the Act’s scope by ss. 3(1)(b) and (c). The WCRB’s search for records was adequate and met its s. 6(1) duty. The WCRB also correctly decided that other records and information were excepted from disclosure by ss. 14 and 22 of the Act.

Applicant requested Board records relating to a previous labour relations matter in which she was involved. Board properly withheld some records because they were personal notes, communications or draft decisions of persons acting in a quasi judicial capacity as contemplated by s. 3(1)(b). Board’s search efforts fulfilled its s. 6(1) obligation.

Applicant requested records relating to alleged change in panel of Board vice-chairs charged with hearing an application involving applicant's client. Searches by Board were adequate for purposes of s. 6(1). Responsive records in chair and vice chair case files connected with case were excluded under s. 3(1)(b) as they were personal notes, communications or draft decisions of persons acting in a quasi judicial capacity. Certain administrative records not excluded by s. 3(1)(b). No basis for invoking public interest override in s. 25(1) of the Act.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available

Adjudicator's decision to deny public body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be held.

The applicants made separate requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) for access to records containing information about them relating to their operation of a foster home. The Ministry withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under ss. 15(1)(d) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The Ministry also decided that some records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(c). The adjudicator determined that some of the disputed records are beyond the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c). Regarding the other records, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold most, but not all, of the disputed information under s. 22(1) and that, given this finding, it is not necessary to also consider s. 15(1)(d).

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.

The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself 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 third-party 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.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board (Board) for records relating to an investigation into the conduct of a former chief of the Victoria Police Department. The Board provided the applicant with responsive records severed under ss. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of FIPPA), 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA, as well as common law settlement privilege. The applicant withdrew his request for review of the records and information withheld under ss. 12(3)(b), 15(1)(l) and 22(1). The adjudicator confirmed the Board’s decision under s. 3(1)(c), determined that the Board was authorized to refuse to disclose some but not all of the information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 14, and found it unnecessary to consider settlement privilege.

The applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investigation that led to the well known 2012 Ministry employee firings. The Ministry provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This order considers ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 applied, and that s. 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that she found s. 22 did not apply to.

Elections BC requested that the OIPC decline to conduct an inquiry into Elections BC’s decision to refuse an applicant access to certain requested records. The records relate to an investigation conducted by Elections BC under the Election Act. The adjudicator found it plain and obvious that the requested records fell outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(c) because Elections BC had created or received them as part of its statutorily mandated functions. Therefore, under s. 56, the adjudicator decided that the OIPC will not conduct an inquiry into this matter.

The applicants made joint requests to the Ministries for records relating to indemnity agreements between them and the Province, including records relating to the Province’s decisions to issue the applicants T4A tax slips. The Ministries withheld some of the records on the basis that they were outside the scope of the Act under s. 3(1)(c), and withheld the other records on the basis of solicitor-client privilege under s. 14. The adjudicator found that some of the records were outside the scope of the Act under s. 3(1)(c) and confirmed the Ministries’ decisions under s. 14.

The applicant requested records relating to his employment with the IIO. The IIO withheld records and information under s. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), s. 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the IIO’s decision regarding ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 16(1)(b) and 22. The adjudicator determined that the IIO was not authorized to refuse the applicant access to information under s. 15 and required it give the applicant access to that information (subject only to information that it was authorized to refuse to disclose under the other exceptions).

A journalist asked the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner for records related to a named police psychologist. The OPCC withheld some records on the basis that they are outside of the scope of FIPPA due to s. 182 of the Police Act and/or s. 3(1)(c) of FIPPA. It disclosed portions of the remaining records, but it withheld some information in them on the basis that it is exempt from disclosure under FIPPA. At inquiry, the OPCC withdrew its reliance on the exemptions to disclosure under FIPPA, and the adjudicator ordered the OPCC to disclose this withheld information to the applicant. For the records withheld as outside of the scope of FIPPA, the adjudicator confirmed the OPCC’s decision that these records are outside of the scope of FIPPA because they fall within the meaning of s. 3(1)(c) of FIPPA.

An applicant requested that the District of West Vancouver provide all records two arbitrators generated regarding the applicant’s harassment complaint against the West Vancouver Police Department. The District responded that the records were not in its custody or under its control within the meaning of ss. 3(1) or 4(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the records are not in the custody or under the control of the District within the meaning of s. 3(1) of FIPPA, so they are outside of the scope of FIPPA.

The applicant requested records related to the delegation of the Chief Electoral Officer’s powers and duties under the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. He also requested all memorandums of understanding between the Chief Electoral Officer or Elections BC and any other organization, agency or body. Elections BC refused to disclose the requested records under s. 3(1)(c) of FIPPA (records outside the scope of Act). The adjudicator determined that s. 3(1)(c) applied to an event plan and three memoranda of understanding, but not to job descriptions and a delegation matrix. Elections BC was ordered to respond to the applicant’s request under Part 2 of FIPPA with respect to the job descriptions and the delegation matrix.

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).

The applicant requested information from ICBC relating to a claim she made concerning a motor vehicle accident. ICBC released some information but withheld other information under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 17 and 22 of FIPPA. ICBC is authorized to withhold most of the information it withheld under s. 14 of FIPPA because it is subject to solicitor-client privilege. ICBC is required to withhold some information it withheld under s. 22 of FIPPA because releasing the information would be an unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy. Some information does not need to be disclosed because it is outside of the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c) of the Act. The remaining information must be disclosed.

The applicant requested information relating to paternity testing conducted at Vancouver General Hospital. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority withheld some records under s. 3(1)(c), s. 14, s. 15(1)(l) and s. 22 of FIPPA. The Adjudicator found that VCHA was authorized to withhold the records withheld under ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 and was required to withhold some records under s. 22 FIPPA. The remaining records must be disclosed.

Vancouver Coastal Health Authority asked that the OIPC not hold an inquiry into its decision to withhold information in response to an applicant’s request. The adjudicator granted VCHA’s request because it was plain and obvious that FIPPA did not apply to the information requested and therefore the information could be withheld.

OIPC decision is confirmed.

A physician requested his entire file from the College. In response, the College disclosed over 1,600 pages of records, withholding other information and records under s. 3(1)(c) and s. 22(1). The College is found to have applied s. 3(1)(c) correctly. The College is also found to have applied s. 22(1) correctly to some information. It is ordered to disclose other information to which s. 22(1) was found not to apply, including “contact information” and the applicant’s own personal information.

The applicant requested audit records used in the preparation of a report by Josiah Wood QC concerning a review of the police complaints process. The Ministry refused the request on the basis that the records arose or were related to conduct complaints. The Ministry said s. 66.1 of the Police Act applied to exclude the application of FIPPA to the records. Section 66.1 of the Police Act applies to the majority of the records and as such they are not subject to FIPPA. A small number of records were ordered disclosed because they did not relate to conduct complaints.

The applicant requested certain records in the inquest files of two dozen individuals. The Ministry disclosed the Verdict at Coroner‘s Inquest in each case, together with correspondence on the juries‘ recommendations. It withheld a number of records on the basis that they were excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act or, alternatively, under s. 3(1)(b) of FIPPA. It withheld the rest of the records under ss. 15, 16(1)(b) and 22(1). Section 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act does not apply as it was not in effect at the time of the requests or Ministry‘s decision on access. Section 3(1)(b) applies to records related to coroners‘ inquest-related functions but not to other records, including those reflecting administrative activities. Section 3(1)(c) applies to a handful of records, although Ministry did not claim it. Ministry ordered to reconsider its decision to apply s. 16(1)(b) on the grounds that it failed to exercise discretion. It was not necessary to consider s. 15. Section 22(1) found to apply to many but not all other records. Ministry ordered to disclose certain records to which ss. 3(1)(b) and 22(1) do not apply.

The applicant requested records relating to termination of the applicant’s appointment under the Election Act as an electoral officer. By virtue of s. 3(1)(c), the records are excluded from FIPPA and Elections BC was not required to disclose them.

The applicant sought access to various Law Society records related to complaints he had made about various lawyers. Order 02-01 and Order No. 260-1998 addressed many of the records in dispute here and issue estoppel is found to apply to information dealt with in those decisions. In the case of some but not all of the information in other records, the Law Society is authorized to refuse to disclose information subject to s. 14 and is required to refuse to disclose third-party personal information protected by s. 22.

The applicant requested all records relating to him at the WCRB. The WCRB correctly decided that certain of the responsive records are excluded from the Act’s scope by ss. 3(1)(b) and (c). The WCRB’s search for records was adequate and met its s. 6(1) duty. The WCRB also correctly decided that other records and information were excepted from disclosure by ss. 14 and 22 of the Act.

The applicant, who had made a complaint to the Ombudsman about UBC, requested access to records in the custody of the Ombudsman related to investigation and disposition of that complaint under the Ombudsman Act. The Ombudsman’s office properly declined to respond, on the basis that the responsive records are excluded from the Act under s. 3(1)(c) because they are in the custody of the Ombudsman, an officer of the Legislature, and relate to the exercise of the Ombudsman’s functions under an enactment, the Ombudsman Act.

The applicant requested access to records related to his complaint to the Ombudsman of British Columbia. The issue of whether records created as a result of any communications between a retired UBC professor and the Ombudsman’s office are in UBC’s custody or control not considered. The applicant is not entitled to records sent to UBC by the Ombudsman office during its investigation, as such records are excluded from the Act by s. 3(1)(c). The applicant is also not entitled, on that basis, to notes made by UBC employee of telephone conversations with the investigating Ombudsman officer, disclosing what the Ombudsman officer had said about the Ombudsman investigation. UBC is also entitled to withhold internal UBC records that relate to UBC’s organization or conduct of its response to Ombudsman inquiries during the investigation

Respondent public body had no responsive records in its custody or under its control. Police Complaint Commissioner under Part 9 of Police Act is an officer of the Legislature for purposes of the Act. Applicant provided with all records in custody or under control of B.C. Police Commission.

No summary available.

No summary available

No summary available.

No summary available

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available

An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for copies of any peer review reports that certain faculty members may have received from academic journals. TRU denied access under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA, on the grounds that the records were the research materials of its faculty members. The adjudicator found that the records were the research materials of its faculty members and outside the scope of FIPPA.

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 a researcher living in a foreign country. TRU denied access under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA, on the grounds that the records were the research materials of its faculty member. The adjudicator found that TRU failed to meet its burden of establishing that the records were the research materials of its faculty member and ordered TRU to disclose them.

A citizens’ organization made a series of requests for records relating to research at UBC involving animals. UBC responded that the records were outside the scope of FIPPA because they contained research information of UBC employees in accordance with s. 3(1)(e). The adjudicator found that most of the records contained the research information of UBC researchers. However, some of the records did not contain research information of UBC researchers. The adjudicator ordered UBC to continue processing the requests with respect to the records that did not contain research information of UBC researchers.

The applicant requested records connected with research proposals he made to the University’s Research Ethics Board. The University argued the records contained the research information of a post-secondary employee and were thus outside FIPPA’s jurisdiction because of s. 3(1)(e). The adjudicator found that he had no authority over the records because FIPPA did not apply, even though the request for them came from the employee himself. The records contain the research information of a post-secondary employee and are therefore excluded from FIPPA under s. 3(1)(e).

The applicant requested records connected with research proposals he made to the University’s Research Ethics Board. The University argued the records contained the research information of a post-secondary employee and were outside of FIPPA’s jurisdiction because of s. 3(1)(e). Even though the request for the records came from the employee himself, the adjudicator found, with the exception of two legal opinions, he had no authority over them because FIPPA did not apply. The records contained the research information of a post-secondary employee and were therefore excluded from FIPPA under s. 3(1)(e). The Ministry properly withheld the two legal opinions at issue under s. 14 of FIPPA.

Applicant sought copy of research protocol for publicly-funded study of possible human health effects of aerial spraying for European gypsy moth. Certain research information of post-secondary educational body employees found to be excluded from Act by s. 3(1)(e). Because public body failed to establish reasonable expectation that disclosure would deprive a researcher of priority of publication, it was not entitled to withhold other information under s. 17(2).

An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for copies of any peer review reports that certain faculty members may have received from academic journals. TRU denied access under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA, on the grounds that the records were the research materials of its faculty members. The adjudicator found that the records were the research materials of its faculty members and outside the scope of FIPPA.

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 a researcher living in a foreign country. TRU denied access under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA, on the grounds that the records were the research materials of its faculty member. The adjudicator found that TRU failed to meet its burden of establishing that the records were the research materials of its faculty member and ordered TRU to disclose them.

A citizens’ organization made a series of requests for records relating to research at UBC involving animals. UBC responded that the records were outside the scope of FIPPA because they contained research information of UBC employees in accordance with s. 3(1)(e). The adjudicator found that most of the records contained the research information of UBC researchers. However, some of the records did not contain research information of UBC researchers. The adjudicator ordered UBC to continue processing the requests with respect to the records that did not contain research information of UBC researchers.

The applicant requested records connected with research proposals he made to the University’s Research Ethics Board. The University argued the records contained the research information of a post-secondary employee and were thus outside FIPPA’s jurisdiction because of s. 3(1)(e). The adjudicator found that he had no authority over the records because FIPPA did not apply, even though the request for them came from the employee himself. The records contain the research information of a post-secondary employee and are therefore excluded from FIPPA under s. 3(1)(e).

The applicant requested records connected with research proposals he made to the University’s Research Ethics Board. The University argued the records contained the research information of a post-secondary employee and were outside of FIPPA’s jurisdiction because of s. 3(1)(e). Even though the request for the records came from the employee himself, the adjudicator found, with the exception of two legal opinions, he had no authority over them because FIPPA did not apply. The records contained the research information of a post-secondary employee and were therefore excluded from FIPPA under s. 3(1)(e). The Ministry properly withheld the two legal opinions at issue under s. 14 of FIPPA.

Applicant sought copy of research protocol for publicly-funded study of possible human health effects of aerial spraying for European gypsy moth. Certain research information of post-secondary educational body employees found to be excluded from Act by s. 3(1)(e). Because public body failed to establish reasonable expectation that disclosure would deprive a researcher of priority of publication, it was not entitled to withhold other information under s. 17(2).

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.

The applicant requested the Ministry provide records related to his landfill operation. The Ministry refused to disclose some information under s. 3(1)(h) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 3(1)(h) did not apply and the records were within the scope of FIPPA. The adjudicator also found that most of the information withheld under ss. 13, 14 and 22, and all of the information withheld under ss. 15(1)(d) and (l), was appropriately withheld under those exceptions. The Ministry also severed information from the records on the basis that the information was “not responsive” to the applicant’s request. The adjudicator held that FIPPA does not authorize refusing to disclose information on that basis.

The GVRD made successful representations to AG Canada urging it to stay proceedings of a private prosecution launched against it under the federal Fisheries Act. The applicant, an environmental group aiding in the private prosecution, later sought access to the records between the GVRD and the AG Canada concerning the stay decision. The GVRD refused on the basis that the records were protected by solicitor-client privilege and that disclosure would reveal information relating to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion under s. 15(1)(g) of FIPPA. Disclosure of the records is ordered. Legal professional privilege does not apply because the records were communications between a lawyer and a third party. Litigation privilege, if it existed, expired because litigation between the parties ended and the possibility of future related litigation was entirely speculative. Section 15(1)(g) of FIPPA did not apply to discretion exercised by federal prosecutors.

The applicant, a patient in a hospital operated by the Commission, requested his records from the Commission. The Commission said certain records are excluded from the Act under s. 3(1)(h). The applicant was found to be not criminally responsible under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code for certain crimes. The applicant’s prosecution ended with the verdict of not criminally responsible and the processes regarding his case under Part XX.1 are not proceedings in respect of the prosecution. The Act applies to the records and the Commission must process the applicant’s request

Applicant sought access to minutes of in camera Inquiry Committee meetings and listing of actions related to a complaint filed against him. Committee withheld entirety of responsive records under ss. 3(1)(b), 3(1)(h), 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22. Records withheld under s. 3(1)(b) do not meet required criteria. Committee entitled to withhold only substance of deliberations under s. 12(3)(b). Sections 3(1)(h), 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22 found not to apply. Public body ordered to re-consider its decision to withhold under s. 12(3)(b).

Applicant requested records related to her complaint to the BCVMA about a veterinarian. The BCVMA withheld the records on the grounds that they were excluded from the scope of the Act under s. 3(1)(h) or, in the alternative, that ss. 8(2), 13, 15 and 22 apply to the records. Section 3(1)(h) does not apply to the records in dispute but s. 15(1)(a) does apply

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

The British Columbia Assessment Authority (BC Assessment) applied for an order that the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to decline to conduct an inquiry in this matter. BC Assessment argued that an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that the records requested by the access applicant are available for purchase by the public and are, therefore, outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(j). The adjudicator decided that the matter will not proceed to an inquiry because it is plain and obvious that s. 3(1)(j) applies to the requested record.

The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Health relating to the regulation of raw milk in BC. The Ministry disclosed some records to the applicant. The Ministry withheld some records under ss.13 (policy advice), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22 (third party personal information) of FIPPA and some others on the basis that they are outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(j). The adjudicator ordered disclosure of the information withheld under s. 3(1)(j) and some of the information withheld under ss. 13, 14 and 22. The remaining information was required to be withheld under s. 22 or authorized to be withheld under ss. 13 or 14.

The applicant made four requests to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to records relating to group benefit plans provided by BCIT to its employees and administered by a third-party company. BCIT determined that the records were not in its custody or under its control and, therefore, not within the applicant’s access rights under ss. 3(1) and 4(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). BCIT also argued that some of the records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(k). The adjudicator found that the records were not in BCIT’s custody or under its control and that it was not necessary to also consider s. 3(1)(k).

The applicant made four requests to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to records relating to group benefit plans provided by BCIT to its employees and administered by a third-party company. BCIT determined that the records were not in its custody or under its control and, therefore, not within the applicant’s access rights under ss. 3(1) and 4(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). BCIT also argued that some of the records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(k). The adjudicator found that the records were not in BCIT’s custody or under its control and that it was not necessary to also consider s. 3(1)(k).

The applicant requested information compiled by a Labour Relations Board (“Board”) Industrial Relations Officer relating to a union’s application for certification. The Board withheld most of the information, asserting that FIPPA did not apply because s. 61(2)(b) of the ATA applied. The Board also argued that if FIPPA did apply, the information must be withheld either under s. 21 of FIPPA, because disclosure would reveal labour relations information supplied in confidence to a person appointed to inquire into a labour relations dispute; or under s. 22 of FIPPA because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s privacy. The Adjudicator found that the ATA does not apply to the information, so FIPPA does apply and most of the information must be withheld under s. 21 of FIPPA. A small amount of information in a memo was not “supplied” under s. 21, does not contain personal information for the purpose of s. 22, and therefore cannot be withheld.

A complainant requested a review of her income calculation that WorkSafeBC used to determine her benefit level for her accident claim. As part of the review process, WorkSafeBC disclosed her file to her employer, including three psychological reports. The complainant submitted that this contravened s. 33.1 of FIPPA because the reports did not relate to review of the income calculation matter. Disclosure was in compliance with s. 3(2) of FIPPA, which states that FIPPA does not limit information available by law to a party to a proceeding. The claim review process is a proceeding for s. 3(2) purposes, the employer was a party to that proceeding and s. 96.2(6) of the WCA required disclosure of records relating to the matter under review, which matter consists of the entire claim file.

The complainant, a former employee of UBC, was terminated from his employment based, in part, on allegations regarding his personal internet use. UBC had utilized log file reports and computer spyware for the purposes of tracking the complainant’s internet activity and the complainant alleged this collection of his personal information was contrary to s. 26 and s. 27. UBC’s policy allowed for some personal internet use and the complainant had never tried to hide his internet activity from his supervisor. The collection was not authorized under s. 26 because it was not necessary for the management of the complainant’s employment, given that UBC had never raised any concern about the complainant’s internet activity with the complainant. The manner of collection was also contrary to s. 27, since the information was required to be directly collected from the complainant and was in fact directly collected from him, but the requirements of advance notice were not met. As a result, both the collection of information and the manner of collection were contrary to UBC’s legal obligations. The complainant asked for an order that the records containing the disputed information be destroyed. The arbitrator hearing the complainant’s termination grievance had ordered the records produced at the grievance hearing. While in most cases of improper collection an order for destruction or requiring UBC not to use the documents would be issued, in this case, given the outstanding production order of the arbitrator, UBC was ordered not to make any use of the information other than as required to enable the grievance arbitrator to make a decision on admissibility.

No summary available

A group of health care professionals jointly complained that the Ministry of Health, the Public Health Officer, and several health profession colleges collected, used and disclosed personal information, including COVID-19 vaccination status, contrary to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the collection, use and disclosure of personal information took place pursuant to the emergency powers provisions in Part 5 of the Public Health Act and two orders made pursuant to those powers. The adjudicator concluded that FIPPA authorized the collection, use and disclosure of personal information.

The applicants requested records relating to their child’s medical treatment. Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) disclosed most of the responsive records to the applicants but withheld some records pursuant to s. 51 of the Evidence Act. The adjudicator found that Island Health is required to refuse to disclose the records in dispute under s. 51 of the Evidence Act.

An applicant requested the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) give him access to his registrant file. The College refused access to some of the records and parts of records under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and pursuant to s. 26.2 of the Health Professions Act (HPA). The adjudicator finds that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 26.2 of the HPA apply to most of the information in dispute. The adjudicator orders the College to give the applicant access to the information to which those provisions do not apply.

The applicant requested access to her own personal information from the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC) relating to a complaint that she had made against a member of the CPABC. The CPABC disclosed some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 15 (harm to law enforcement) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The CPABC also withheld all of the information under s. 69 of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act (CPAA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(7) of FIPPA overrides s. 69 of the CPAA. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(3), 13(1) and 15 of FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information. The adjudicator ordered the CPABC to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.

An applicant requested records created pursuant to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which requires crown counsel to report adverse judicial comments on a peace officer’s testimony. The Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) withheld information in two of the responsive records under s. 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry also decided that the name of the involved police officer could be disclosed, and notified the police officer’s employer, who requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The applicant and another party were also invited to participate in the inquiry.

An applicant requested records about an investigation conducted by the Independent Investigations Office (IIO). The IIO refused to disclose some records under s. 3(3)(a) (court record) and some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(c) (harm to law enforcement), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found s. (3)(3)(a) did not apply to the records in dispute. The adjudicator confirmed the IIO’s decision regarding s. 14 and found that ss. 16(1)(b) and 22(1) applied to most, but not all, of the information withheld under those sections. However, the adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(c) did not apply to most of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(c). The IIO was required to respond to the applicant’s request for access to the records that the IIO withheld under s. 3(3)(a). The IIO was required to disclose the information that the IIO was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 15(1)(c), 16(1)(b) and 22(1).

An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the application and appointment of a specific BC Supreme Court master. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under multiple exceptions to access. In some cases, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information in the responsive records under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. Given their finding on s. 22(1), the adjudicator did not need to consider whether s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) also applied to the same information. The Ministry was ordered to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under FIPPA. The Ministry also argued, and the adjudicator confirmed, that some of the responsive records fell outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(3)(c); therefore, the applicant had no right to access those records under FIPPA.

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 records related to the establishment of BCUC’s Inquiry into the Regulation of Municipal Energy Utilities. BCUC refused to disclose the records on the basis that they are excluded from the scope of FIPPA, some pages by s. 3(3)(e) of FIPPA and others by s. 61(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act (ATA). BCUC claimed, in the alternative, that ss. 13 and 14 of FIPPA apply to some of the information in the records. The adjudicator finds that some pages are excluded from FIPPA’s scope by s. 61(2)(a) of the ATA. The adjudicator also finds that: other pages are not excluded from FIPPA’s scope by s. 3(3)(e); are not required to be disclosed under s. 25(1)(b); and only some are properly withheld under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator orders BCUC to disclose the information to which ss.13 and 14 do not apply.

An applicant made a request to the Ministry of Education and Child Care (Ministry) for access to records related to the Ministry’s investigation into the applicant’s employment. The Ministry refused access to some information on the basis that FIPPA did not apply to this information or that it fell under one or more of FIPPA’s exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that s. 61(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act (personal note, communication or draft decision of a decision-maker) applied to some information and, therefore, that FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator also found that the Ministry had properly applied ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) to withhold some of the information in dispute. However, she found that the Ministry was not authorized to withhold any information under s. 13(1). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.

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 records related to the appointment of panel members for an inquiry. BCUC refused to disclose the records on the basis that s. 61(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act (ATA) applies and says that FIPPA does not apply. The adjudicator finds that FIPPA does not apply because s. 61(2)(a) of the ATA applies.

An applicant requested records created pursuant to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which requires crown counsel to report adverse judicial comments on a peace officer’s testimony. The Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) withheld information in two of the responsive records under s. 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry also decided that the name of the involved police officer could be disclosed, and notified the police officer’s employer, who requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The applicant and another party were also invited to participate in the inquiry.

An applicant requested records created pursuant to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which requires crown counsel to report adverse judicial comments on a peace officer’s testimony. The Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) withheld information in two of the responsive records under s. 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry also decided that the name of the involved police officer could be disclosed, and notified the police officer’s employer, who requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The applicant and another party were also invited to participate in the inquiry.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested the British Columbia Railway Company (Company) provide access to an agreement involving Tsal’álh (formerly known as Seton Lake Indian Band) and a local passenger rail service. The Company refused access citing various provisions of FIPPA, including s. 17(1) (disclosure harmful to financial or economic interests). The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) review the Company’s decision and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. During the inquiry, the parties received approval from the OIPC to add s. 3(5)(b) (record not related to the public body’s business) and s. 25(1)(b) (disclosure clearly in the public interest) to the inquiry. Tsal’álh was also invited by the OIPC to participate in the inquiry as an appropriate person and made submissions. The adjudicator found s. 3(5)(b) did not apply, therefore the requested record was subject to Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator then determined the Company correctly applied s. 17(1) to the information in the requested record and, therefore, it was not necessary to consider the other FIPPA exceptions relied on by the Company. Finally, the adjudicator concluded the Company was not required under s. 25(1)(b) to disclose any information in the requested record.

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.

The Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisectionist Society of BC (applicant) made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Simon Fraser University (SFU) for records relating to the use of animals in research and training protocols. SFU provided the applicant with access to some records, withholding some information under s. 19(1) (harm to personal safety). It also withheld some records as outside the scope of FIPPA in accordance with s. 3(3)(i)(iii) (research materials of person carrying out research at a post-secondary educational body). The adjudicator confirmed the decision of SFU to withhold records and information under s. 3(3)(i) and s. 19(1).

The Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisectionist Society of BC (applicant) made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Simon Fraser University (SFU) for records relating to the use of animals in research and training protocols. SFU provided the applicant with access to some records, withholding some information under s. 19(1) (harm to personal safety). It also withheld some records as outside the scope of FIPPA in accordance with s. 3(3)(i)(iii) (research materials of person carrying out research at a post-secondary educational body). The adjudicator confirmed the decision of SFU to withhold records and information under s. 3(3)(i) and s. 19(1).

The Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisectionist Society of BC (applicant) made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Simon Fraser University (SFU) for records relating to the use of animals in research and training protocols. SFU provided the applicant with access to some records, withholding some information under s. 19(1) (harm to personal safety). It also withheld some records as outside the scope of FIPPA in accordance with s. 3(3)(i)(iii) (research materials of person carrying out research at a post-secondary educational body). The adjudicator confirmed the decision of SFU to withhold records and information under s. 3(3)(i) and s. 19(1).

The applicant requested records about himself from his employer, BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS). BCEHS provided 6,121 pages of responsive records, but withheld information in the records under ss. 3(3)(h) (scope of FIPPA), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). BCEHS also withheld a small amount of information under common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator confirmed BCEHS’s decisions with respect to ss. 3(3)(h), 13(1), 14, and (with one exception) s. 22. The adjudicator ordered BCEHS, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the records withheld under settlement privilege for the purpose of deciding this issue on the merits.

The Ministry of Health requested the Commissioner exercise his discretion, under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to decline holding an inquiry into its decision to refuse an applicant access to two requested records. Among other things, the Ministry of Health argued an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that it does not have custody or control of those records. The adjudicator found it was plain and obvious the records sought by the applicant were not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry and, therefore, fall outside the scope of FIPPA. As a result, the adjudicator allowed the Ministry of Health’s s. 56(1) application and the upcoming inquiry was cancelled.

An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for copies of any peer review reports that certain faculty members may have received from academic journals. TRU denied access under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA, on the grounds that the records were the research materials of its faculty members. The adjudicator found that the records were the research materials of its faculty members and outside the scope of FIPPA.

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 a researcher living in a foreign country. TRU denied access under s. 3(1)(e) of FIPPA, on the grounds that the records were the research materials of its faculty member. The adjudicator found that TRU failed to meet its burden of establishing that the records were the research materials of its faculty member and ordered TRU to disclose them.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to emails, including “the header and all metadata attached”, between BCIT and its employee group benefits provider. In response, BCIT said the requested records are not in its custody or under its control, within the meaning of ss. 3(1) (scope of FIPPA) and 4(1) (information rights). The adjudicator determined that none of the records are in BCIT’s custody. However, the adjudicator determined that some, but not all, of the records are under BCIT’s control.

The public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to public body’s financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply because the records had been in existence for 10 or more years, so s. 13(3) was engaged. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision, in part, to refuse access under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1) and ordered the public body to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.

An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) file on its investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. The VPD disclosed some of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 15 (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to the information in dispute and ordered the VPD to refuse the applicant access to it. It was not necessary to consider s. 15.

The applicant requested her own personal information in the custody or under the control of the Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC). LSBC refused to disclose some information because it was not her personal information and/or ss. 13, 14, 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and s. 88(2) of the Legal Professions Act applied. The adjudicator found that most of the information in dispute was not the applicant’s personal information and LSBC was authorized to refuse to disclose it on that basis because it was not the information she requested. However, the adjudicator also found that the disputed information included a few instances of the applicant’s name, that ss.13, 14, 22 and 88(2) did not apply in those instances and LSBC was required to disclose those instances to the applicant.

The applicant made four requests to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to records relating to group benefit plans provided by BCIT to its employees and administered by a third-party company. BCIT determined that the records were not in its custody or under its control and, therefore, not within the applicant’s access rights under ss. 3(1) and 4(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). BCIT also argued that some of the records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(k). The adjudicator found that the records were not in BCIT’s custody or under its control and that it was not necessary to also consider s. 3(1)(k).

A society complained to the OIPC that the City of Vancouver (City) did not meet its duty to assist under s. 6(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the City did not respond openly, accurately and completely to the access request and that the City did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the City to conduct another search. In addition, the adjudicator found that certain records were responsive records in the custody and control of the City under s. 4 of FIPPA.

UBC refused a journalist access to the rubric, criteria and scoring instructions it uses to assess the personal profiles of prospective students under ss. 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(e) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 17 (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body) of FIPPA. Order F15-49 held that none of those provisions applied and ordered the University to disclose the records. UBC filed a petition for judicial review of the part of Order F15-49 that dealt with ss. 3(1)(d) and 17. The Court of Appeal quashed the ss. 3(1)(d) and 17 orders and remitted the matter back, and this is the resulting decision. The adjudicator finds that the records are outside the scope of FIPPA because s. 3(1)(d) applies. Given that FIPPA does not apply, the adjudicator declines to consider whether s. 17 applies.

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.

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.

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.

The applicant requested all reports of the Internal Audit and Advisory Services Unit and the Special Investigations Unit issued by the Ministry of Finance’s Comptroller General within a particular time frame. The applicant further requested the records be released pursuant to s. 25 (clearly in the public interest). The Ministry of Finance identified investigation reports responsive to the request but withheld them in their entirety pursuant to s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator did not consider s. 14, as she determined that the Ministry is required to refuse to disclose the majority of the information withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator further determined that s. 25 did not apply to the records.

In Order F14-32 it was held that the Ministry was not authorized to sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that those portions were “out of scope of request”. The Ministry sought a reconsideration of Order F14-32 on that issue. FIPPA does not authorize the Ministry to withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that they are outside the scope of the applicant’s request. It is ordered to consider the request as it relates to those portions and disclose them except with respect to information to which exceptions to disclosure set out in Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA apply.

The applicant requested the Ministry provide records related to his landfill operation. The Ministry refused to disclose some information under s. 3(1)(h) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 3(1)(h) did not apply and the records were within the scope of FIPPA. The adjudicator also found that most of the information withheld under ss. 13, 14 and 22, and all of the information withheld under ss. 15(1)(d) and (l), was appropriately withheld under those exceptions. The Ministry also severed information from the records on the basis that the information was “not responsive” to the applicant’s request. The adjudicator held that FIPPA does not authorize refusing to disclose information on that basis.

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.

A journalist requested records related to the City of Vancouver’s closed circuit television system. The City refused to disclose some of the requested information under ss. 13, 14, 15, 17 and 19. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and other information under s. 14 (legal advice). However, the adjudicator found that the City had not established that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the harms in s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), s. 17 (harm to the City’s financial or economic interests) or s. 19 (harm to public safety). In addition, the adjudicator ordered the City to process, under Part 2, Division 2 of FIPPA, the information that it incorrectly withheld from the records as being not responsive, repeats and examples.

The applicant requested information from the Vancouver Island Health Authority relating to VIHA’s decision-making process concerning fixed site needle exchange services in Greater Victoria. VIHA withheld information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13, 14 and 22 of FIPPA. It also withheld other information on the basis that the information was outside of the scope of the applicant’s request. The adjudicator was not satisfied that s. 12(3)(b) applies. However, he determined that ss. 14 and 22 apply to all of the information withheld under those sections and that s. 13 applies to most of the information withheld under that section. The adjudicator also ordered VIHA to process the applicant’s request for the information it had marked out of scope.

The applicant requested information about herself held by BC Ferries, particularly information related to an incident that occurred during her work as an equipment operator. BC Ferries withheld information claiming ss. 13, 15, 19 and 22 of FIPPA exemptions. With the exception of its reliance on s. 13 and a few pages that must be disclosed, BC Ferries properly applied disclosure exemptions to the record.

Section 25 does not require the Ministry to disclose information in an outsource service contract in the public interest. Section 21(1) does not require the Ministry to refuse to disclose information as claimed by the third-party contractor. The Ministry is obliged to respond to the applicant on the applicability of all exceptions to disclosure, not just s. 21(1), since the third-party review requested by the contractor froze only the Ministry’s duty to respond to the access request for the information that was the subject of the third-party review.

The applicant sought the hospital records of his infant child. The PHSA properly denied access to the records on the basis that the applicant was a non-custodial parent.

Commissioner's ruling on jurisdiction to hold an inquiry on records and correspondence submitted to a Special Committee of the Legislative Assembly held by the Office of the Clerk of Committees of the Legislative Assembly.

An access request was made for copies of the 1999 disclosure statements that two municipal election candidates were required to file under the Vancouver Charter. Section 65 of the Vancouver Charter requires the City to make such statements available for public inspection. It also requires the City to obtain from anyone inspecting a statement a signed statement of restricted purpose and use. This requirement conflicts or is inconsistent with public access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for unrestricted purposes and uses. Under s. 8.1 of the Vancouver Charter, s. 65 of the Vancouver Charter overrides the Act to the extent of any conflict or inconsistency. In the absence of a right of access under the Act, the applicant has no right to copies under ss. 5(2) and 9(2)(a) of the Act.

Applicant requested her personal information from BCIT, which failed to respond to her access request. BCIT responded, almost a year and a half later, after intervention by this Office. BCIT’s response addressed only part of the applicant’s request. BCIT found not to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty to respond without delay and to respond openly, accurately and completely. BCIT found not to have responded when required by s. 7(1). Reasons given for response were inadequate. BCIT ordered to conduct further searches and to respond to applicant’s request completely and accurately. Conditions imposed respecting timing of further search and of response to applicant. Having failed to make submissions in inquiry, BCIT found not to be authorized by ss. 13, 15 or 17 to refuse to disclose information in the one disputed record. Minimal third party personal information in record appropriately severed under s. 22(1).

No summary available.

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.

The Ministry of Forests (Ministry) requested the Commissioner exercise their discretion, under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to decline to hold an inquiry into the Ministry’s decision to refuse an applicant access to a requested record. The Ministry argued that an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that it does not have custody or control of the requested record. The adjudicator found that it was not plain and obvious that the Ministry did not have custody or control of the requested record. Therefore, the adjudicator dismissed the Ministry’s s. 56(1) application and directed the matter to an inquiry.

The College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (College) received a request from an individual who requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the College’s investigation of a pharmacist. The College provided the individual with access to most of the information in the responsive records but withheld some information under various FIPPA exceptions to access. The individual requested a review of the College’s decision. The issues between the parties were eventually narrowed down to the College’s decision to withhold information in a particular record under both s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences) of FIPPA. A central issue between the parties was whether the disputed record qualified as a report under s. 13(2)(k). Except for a small amount of information, the adjudicator found the College correctly applied s. 13(1) to the information at issue and that s. 13(2)(k) did not apply to the disputed record. For the small amount of information that the College was not authorized to withhold under s. 13(1), the adjudicator also found s. 12(3)(b) did not apply to this information and ordered the College to disclose it.

The Ministry of Health requested the Commissioner exercise his discretion, under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to decline holding an inquiry into its decision to refuse an applicant access to two requested records. Among other things, the Ministry of Health argued an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that it does not have custody or control of those records. The adjudicator found it was plain and obvious the records sought by the applicant were not in the custody or under the control of the Ministry and, therefore, fall outside the scope of FIPPA. As a result, the adjudicator allowed the Ministry of Health’s s. 56(1) application and the upcoming inquiry was cancelled.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the District of Lantzville (District) for copies of texts to and from a named District councillor regarding District matters. The District withheld the responsive records on the basis that they are not in its custody or under its control within the meaning of ss. 3(1) and 4(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the records are not in the District’s custody or control under s. 3(1) and therefore FIPPA does not apply.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to emails, including “the header and all metadata attached”, between BCIT and its employee group benefits provider. In response, BCIT said the requested records are not in its custody or under its control, within the meaning of ss. 3(1) (scope of FIPPA) and 4(1) (information rights). The adjudicator determined that none of the records are in BCIT’s custody. However, the adjudicator determined that some, but not all, of the records are under BCIT’s control.

The applicant made four requests to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to records relating to group benefit plans provided by BCIT to its employees and administered by a third-party company. BCIT determined that the records were not in its custody or under its control and, therefore, not within the applicant’s access rights under ss. 3(1) and 4(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). BCIT also argued that some of the records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(k). The adjudicator found that the records were not in BCIT’s custody or under its control and that it was not necessary to also consider s. 3(1)(k).

In a re-opened inquiry, the adjudicator considered whether two records related to the City of White Rock connecting to the Metro Vancouver Regional District?s water supply were in the custody or under the control of the City of White Rock. The adjudicator found that they were not.

An applicant requested EasyPark's 2010-2015 financial statements and records showing its directors' names, remuneration and expenses. The applicant said that disclosure of the records is clearly in the public interest under s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override). The City of Vancouver (City) refused access to the financial statements under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party financial interests). It also said that EasyPark was not a public body and that the records related to EasyPark's directors were not in its custody or under its control. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the financial statements and ordered the City to disclose them. Finally, the adjudicator found that EasyPark is not a public body, that the City does not control EasyPark and that the records related to EasyPark's directors are not in the custody or under the control of the City.

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.

A journalist requested access to minutes, agendas and correspondence of four directors of the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (“VANOC”). The adjudicator found that the requested records are not in the custody or under the control of the public bodies.

A journalist requested records from UBC relating to seven entities. UBC was able to provide some records and a few others were publicly available but for the most part UBC argued that it did not have custody and control of the requested records. Order F09-06 found UBC to have control of the requested records with respect to three of the entities. The Order was subject to a judicial review that led to a consent order to the effect that the OIPC would reconsider the question as to whether UBC had custody or control of the records of the three entities. In the meantime, a judicial review of Order F08-01 found that the relationship between SFU and its subsidiaries did not meet the common law test for piercing the corporate veil, and, therefore, SFU did not exercise control over the records. In this case, the relationship between UBC and the three entities does not meet the common law test for piercing the corporate veil. UBC does not exercise control over the records for the purpose of FIPPA.

Applicant requested access to records from an investigation into human rights complaints against him. The PHSA disclosed some records and withheld others under s. 3(1)(b) and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. It also took the position that some pages were not in its custody or control. Section 3(1)(b) found not to apply and PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a decision on entitlement to access respecting those pages. Section 51 of the Evidence Act found to apply to other pages. PHSA found to have custody and control of certain pages and ordered to provide applicant with a decision on access regarding those pages. Section 22 found to apply to some information and not to other information. PHSA ordered to provide the applicant with access to information to which s. 22 was found not to apply.

The applicant requested records from UBC relating to seven entities. UBC was able to provide some records and a few others were publicly available but for the most part UBC argued that the entities had custody and control of the requested records; it did not. UBC is found to have control of the requested records with respect to three of the entities and is ordered to respond to the applicant in respect of those access requests. All three bodies were entities created and owned 100% by UBC and accountable to it.

The applicant requested information relating to two “spin-off companies” in the possession of SFU’s University/Industry Liaison office. SFU initially took the position that the records were in its custody and control but later changed its position and said that the records were within the custody and control of its wholly-owned subsidiary, SFUV. The records are within SFU’s control and SFU is ordered to discharge its obligations as a public body to the applicant and to third parties.

The applicant requested access to records relating to a public report on offshore oil and gas exploration prepared for the Minister of Energy and Mines by a panel of three scientific experts. For records in the possession of the Ministry, s. 12(1) applied to a small amount of information, ss. 13(1) and 16(1) applied to some other information and s. 25(1) did not apply. Some information in these records was also incorrectly withheld as not responsive to request but may be withheld under ss. 13(1) and 16(1). Records in the possession of panel members or the panel secretariat are under the control of the Ministry and subject to an access request under the Act.

Applicant requested access to records related to himself in the public body’s security and infection control areas. PHSA correctly refused access to information under s. 14 and for the most part under s. 22. PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a few items of information withheld under s. 22 and with summary under s. 22(5). A few pages are not in PHSA’s custody or control. Other pages are in PHSA’s control and it is ordered to process them under the Act.

The applicant requested records relating to the review by two experts of an appraisal conducted by the applicant. The City conducted an adequate search for records. It does not have control over records in the custody of the two experts. The City did not fail in its duty to assist under s. 6 as a result of not requesting that the two experts provide a copy of their records for release to the applicant.

The applicant is an employee of the public body and was the target of a harassment complaint by a co-worker. The applicant made an access request for a contract investigator’s notes of investigation of the complaint. The notes are under the control of the public body, which is required to comply with the Act by processing the access request.

The applicant requested access to records concerning the public body’s response to a complaint relating to the protection of a stream. The public body released records but refused to provide information that would reveal the identity of a third-party complainant. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the disputed information.

The applicant requested access through the Internet to live webcam video feeds of two beehive burners. One of the Ministry’s regional managers is able to view the live feeds, which arrive over the Internet, on his computer. As the webcam feeds are live and image data is not recorded or stored, the data comprising the live feeds are not a “record” as defined in the Act. Since the Act only applies to records, the webcam feeds are not subject to the right of access

The applicant made an access request to the WCB for records related to the evaluation of proposals that contractors submitted to a society in response to a request for proposals the society had issued. The WCB disclosed portions of some records that it possessed, but said that other responsive records, which the society had in its possession, were not in the WCB’s custody or under the WCB’s control. The Act does not apply to those other records, as the WCB does not have control of them.

The applicant requested a list of all investments held by the University and by the Foundation. The University does not have custody or control of the requested Foundation records.

Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1), as information does not consist of advice or recommendations. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld under that section, but s. 22(1) applies, in part on the basis of s. 22(3)(a), to some of the same information. Section 22(3)(d) does not apply to information about ministry employees’ work-related actions, so s. 22(1) does not apply to that information. Ministry found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.

Applicant sought records relating to him, and a legal opinion about him, in Ministry’s custody. Ministry authorized to withhold information under s. 14. Ministry not authorized to withhold information under s. 17(1), but Ministry required to withhold same information under s. 22.

No summary available

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested the British Columbia Railway Company (Company) provide access to an agreement involving Tsal’álh (formerly known as Seton Lake Indian Band) and a local passenger rail service. The Company refused access citing various provisions of FIPPA, including s. 17(1) (disclosure harmful to financial or economic interests). The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) review the Company’s decision and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. During the inquiry, the parties received approval from the OIPC to add s. 3(5)(b) (record not related to the public body’s business) and s. 25(1)(b) (disclosure clearly in the public interest) to the inquiry. Tsal’álh was also invited by the OIPC to participate in the inquiry as an appropriate person and made submissions. The adjudicator found s. 3(5)(b) did not apply, therefore the requested record was subject to Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator then determined the Company correctly applied s. 17(1) to the information in the requested record and, therefore, it was not necessary to consider the other FIPPA exceptions relied on by the Company. Finally, the adjudicator concluded the Company was not required under s. 25(1)(b) to disclose any information in the requested record.

An applicant requested access to records related to the Metro Vancouver Transit Police’s (MVTP’s) investigation into a dispute in which he was involved. The MVTP disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information and records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the MVTP was required to withhold most of the information under s. 22(1) and ordered the MVTP to disclose the remainder of the information.

The College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (College) received a request from an individual who requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the College’s investigation of a pharmacist. The College provided the individual with access to most of the information in the responsive records but withheld some information under various FIPPA exceptions to access. The individual requested a review of the College’s decision. The issues between the parties were eventually narrowed down to the College’s decision to withhold information in a particular record under both s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences) of FIPPA. A central issue between the parties was whether the disputed record qualified as a report under s. 13(2)(k). Except for a small amount of information, the adjudicator found the College correctly applied s. 13(1) to the information at issue and that s. 13(2)(k) did not apply to the disputed record. For the small amount of information that the College was not authorized to withhold under s. 13(1), the adjudicator also found s. 12(3)(b) did not apply to this information and ordered the College to disclose it.

The New Westminster Police Department (Department) requested authorization to disregard a portion of an access request under s. 43(c)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the request was not excessively broad and, therefore, did not authorize the Department to disregard the access request under s. 43(c)(i). The adjudicator also declined to permit the Department to disregard the access request under s. 43 generally.

The applicant requested communications related to instructions and guidance given to a Thompson Rivers University (TRU) employee about responding to media inquiries that related to him personally. TRU disclosed responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold all the information it withheld under ss. 14 and some of the information it withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) and ordered TRU to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).

An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of Victoria (University) for access to records containing information about the University's response to an allegation that the applicant breached the University's Sexualized Violence Prevention and Response Policy. The University withheld the majority of information in the records citing s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal information) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the University was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the University to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).

An applicant made a request to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (the Ministry), under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), for all records and communications relating to himself and his company in the Ministry’s possession. The Ministry withheld information under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1)(a)(iii) and 16(1)(c) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations) and various other sections of FIPPA. In Order F23-41, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry was not authorized to withhold some information under s. 14 and ordered the Ministry to produce that information to the OIPC so the adjudicator could determine whether the Ministry was authorized to withhold it under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) or (c). In the instant order, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to withhold some of the information that remained in dispute under s. 16(1)(a)(iii), but ordered the Ministry to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.

An applicant requested access to records, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the City of North Vancouver (City). The City provided the applicant with access to records but withheld some parts of the records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information under s. 13(1) and found that the City was required to refuse the applicant access to some but not all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the remainder to the applicant.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (BCI) for copies of 2014-2015 BCI employee engagement and satisfaction survey reports, including results and analysis. BCI withheld the responsive records and information on the basis of common law case-by-case privilege and ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA is a complete code of exceptions to disclosure abrogating case-by-case privilege, so BCI was not entitled to rely on that privilege as an access exception. The adjudicator then determined that BCI was authorized to withhold most of the disputed information under s. 13(1), but that it was not authorized or required to withhold the balance of the information under the other exceptions BCI applied.

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 public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to public body’s financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply because the records had been in existence for 10 or more years, so s. 13(3) was engaged. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision, in part, to refuse access under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1) and ordered the public body to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.

An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) file on its investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. The VPD disclosed some of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 15 (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to the information in dispute and ordered the VPD to refuse the applicant access to it. It was not necessary to consider s. 15.

The applicant requested her own personal information in the custody or under the control of the Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC). LSBC refused to disclose some information because it was not her personal information and/or ss. 13, 14, 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and s. 88(2) of the Legal Professions Act applied. The adjudicator found that most of the information in dispute was not the applicant’s personal information and LSBC was authorized to refuse to disclose it on that basis because it was not the information she requested. However, the adjudicator also found that the disputed information included a few instances of the applicant’s name, that ss.13, 14, 22 and 88(2) did not apply in those instances and LSBC was required to disclose those instances to the applicant.

The applicant asked the BC Public Service Agency (PSA) for records related to a workplace investigation that occurred in the aftermath of the well-known Ministry of Health firings. The PSA withheld all the responsive records under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 13 (advice and recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to all but three of the records, two of which the PSA also withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the PSA to disclose the record not covered by s. 14 to the applicant. The adjudicator also ordered the PSA to produce the remaining two records to the commissioner under s. 44 and will remain seized of the matter until she makes a final decision respecting s. 22.

A professor requested information about two University investigations into his work conduct. The University gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s decision regarding s. 14. The s. 13(1) and s. 22(1) decisions were confirmed in part. The University was ordered to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.

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.

An applicant requested Ministry meeting minutes relating to damage to his property. The Ministry refused to disclose any information in the responsive records, claiming solicitor client privilege protects it all. The adjudicator determined that s. 14 of FIPPA authorizes the Ministry to refuse to disclose some of the withheld information but not all of it.

The applicant requested Vancouver Police Department (VPD) files about himself for the period 2003 onwards. The VPD disclosed most of the information in the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to all of the withheld information, with the exception of the identities of some of the third parties and a small amount of background information about them.

The applicant requested briefing notes for the attorney general on a specific topic. The Ministry refused to disclose the briefing notes in their entirety under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to all of the information in dispute except for third party correspondence attached to one briefing note. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 did not apply to the correspondence. The adjudicator required the public body to sever the correspondence under s. 4(2) and disclose it to the applicant.

A pharmacy’s lawyer requested copies of complaints and allegations about the pharmacy’s business practices. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(d) (reveal identity of confidential source of law enforcement information) and s. 22 (harm to third-party personal privacy) applied to almost all of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that s. 19(1)(a) (harm to safety) did not apply to the names of three Ministry employees and ordered the Ministry to disclose this information to the lawyer.

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.

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.

The applicant requested all reports of the Internal Audit and Advisory Services Unit and the Special Investigations Unit issued by the Ministry of Finance’s Comptroller General within a particular time frame. The applicant further requested the records be released pursuant to s. 25 (clearly in the public interest). The Ministry of Finance identified investigation reports responsive to the request but withheld them in their entirety pursuant to s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator did not consider s. 14, as she determined that the Ministry is required to refuse to disclose the majority of the information withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator further determined that s. 25 did not apply to the records.

A journalist requested information about active grievances filed by employees of the Ministry of Health under the collective agreement governing their workplace. The Public Service Agency, which is part of the Ministry of Finance, responded to his request. The Ministry disclosed the number of active grievances for the requested period, but it refused to disclose any other information on the basis that to do so would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The information in dispute was contained in a table. The adjudicator determined that the majority of the information in the table would identify the grievors, so it was their personal information and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of their personal privacy under s. 22. However, severing under s. 4(2) was possible, and the Ministry was ordered to disclose specific information that would not permit identification of the grievors.

The applicant asked for any records with his name on them. The City disclosed some records, withholding information under ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence) and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The Adjudicator found that all three exceptions applied.

The applicant requested a record of email activity sent to and from Ministry and other public bodies’ email addresses contained in logs residing on BC Government servers. The Ministry refused to disclose the record on the basis that disclosing it would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22. The Ministry also said that it was unreasonable, for the purpose of s. 4(2) of FIPPA to sever information to which s. 22 applies and release the remaining information. The adjudicator found that s. 22 applies to the record in issue. Further, it is unreasonable under s. 4(2) for the Ministry to sever personal information to which s. 22 applies and disclose the remaining information.

The applicant requested records about an individual who died in 1989. The VPD withheld all of the requested information from responsive records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy (s. 22). Specifically, the VPD cited the presumption against disclosing personal information if the information was compiled and is identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to prosecute the violation or to continue the investigation (s. 22(3)(b)). The adjudicator determined that the VPD must refuse to disclose all of the requested information from the responsive records, except for the names and titles of employees who worked on the disputed records, because disclosing this information would not be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22(4)(e) of FIPPA.

The applicant is a retired employee of Coast Mountain Bus. He requested records related to a voluntary early retirement program. The South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (“TransLink”) withheld some of the requested information from responsive records on the basis that it is exempt from disclosure under s. 13 of FIPPA (advice or recommendations), and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that TransLink was authorized by s. 13 and required by s. 22 to withhold some of the information. The adjudicator determined that TransLink must disclose the rest of the information to the applicant. In addition, the adjudicator ordered TransLink to process, under Part 2 of FIPPA, the information that it incorrectly withheld from certain records on the basis that it was duplicated information.

UVic denied the applicant access to a record of the results of a workplace investigation into allegations against a third party, on the grounds that its disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The Adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the entire record and confirmed UVic’s decision to deny access to it.

The applicant requested copies of all resignation letters received by PavCo during the September 2011 to September 2012 operating year. PavCo claimed that it was required under s. 22(1) of FIPPA to refuse disclosure of the letters because they contain personal information that relates to employment, occupational or educational history and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy. PavCo correctly denied the applicant access to the personal information and it must be severed from the remaining portions of the record.

The applicant requested records relating to all letters, opinions, and reviews from the City’s lawyer referred to in a memo from the City’s Chief Administrative Officer to the Mayor and City Council. The City refused to disclose the records on the basis that solicitor-client privilege applied. The Adjudicator found that solicitor-client privilege applies to the records.

The applicant requested access to electronic copies of 70 fields of Foundation Skills Assessment student summary data for a certain period, in order to carry out statistical research on the data. The Ministry refused access under s. 22. In his inquiry submission, the applicant offered to reduce the scope of his request to a few fields. The Ministry provided three options for disclosure of the narrower set of data, with Personal Education Numbers (PENs) encrypted, which in its view would not unreasonably invade individual student privacy. Ministry is ordered to disclose data in accordance with the option involving disclosure of the narrowed data with PENs encrypted and populations or cells of fewer than five students suppressed.

The applicant requested records from the College relating to the investigation of a complaint the applicant made against a psychologist. The College is required to refuse disclosure of personal information because it would be an unreasonable invasion of the psychologist’s personal privacy. The personal information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law and also related to the occupational history of the psychologist. The applicant did not rebut the presumptions of unreasonable invasion of personal privacy thus raised.

Applicant requested video footage taken of her while she was held in custody at the Vancouver City Jail. The public body refused access on the basis of s. 15(1)(f), s. 15(1)(l) and s. 22. The public body argued that s. 22 required it to withhold information relating to other individuals in custody, but not that relating to officers working at the Jail. Third-party officers whose images were on the videos objected to the disclosure. There was no persuasive evidence that releasing the videos which reveal incidents of interest to the applicant would endanger the life or physical safety of a law enforcement officer or harm the security system of the jail. The public body is required to provide access to some of the video footage, but must withhold information which would identify other individuals held in custody. The fact that the videos will identify the third parties in their employment capacity does not render disclosure of the videos an unreasonable invasion of privacy.

The third-party casino operators requested further consideration of one aspect of the s. 22 guidelines contained in Order F08-03. Further submissions are permitted on that issue. In the meantime, the Ministry must disclose the s. 86 reports, as ordered in Order F08-03, with the exception of the information required to be withheld according to the guidelines in Order F08-03 and the names of casino employees acting in a professional or employment capacity, the disclosure of which remains unresolved pending further consideration of s. 22 arising from Order F08-03.

Applicant requested access to a document the third party created to describe his workplace interactions with the applicant. Section 22 found to apply to the third party’s personal information in the record and UVic is required to withhold it. It is not reasonable to sever the record as the personal information of applicant and third party is intertwined. This is not an appropriate case to summarize the record.

The applicant requested access to records disclosing telephone numbers called by the Premier from his private lines during a specified period. Section 17(1) does not authorize the Ministry to refuse disclosure. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to refuse disclosure and severance under s. 4(2) is not required.

The applicant made a request for records related to the Core Services Review of the BC Ambulance Service. The Ministry denied access under ss. 12(1), 13, and 17. Prior to the inquiry, the Ministry released some records, fulfilling its duties under s. 4(2). The Ministry carried out its duties under s. 6. Section 25 does not apply. The Ministry applied s. 12(1) appropriately.

The VCHA is not authorized or required to withhold the entirety of some pages of records relating to incident reports by licensed residential community care facilities. The rest of the requested records contain personal information of residents that cannot reasonably be severed under s. 4(2). The VCHA may create a responsive non-identifying record under s. 6. The VCHA is not required to disclose information under s. 25(1).

The applicant sought access to an electronic copy of the Ministry’s computerized enforcement and compliance tracking system, ERA. The Ministry initially proposed giving the applicant a paper copy and estimated a fee. Discussions clarified that the applicant wanted an electronic copy of a snapshot, at a given date, of the ERA, with certain data entities and attributes deleted. The Ministry refused on three grounds: an electronic copy of the snapshot included computer software elements that are excluded from the definition of record in Schedule 1, s. 6(2) did not require it to create the requested record and s. 4(2) did not require it to sever the record. Section 6(2) requires the Ministry to create the electronic record that the applicant requested, but information excepted from disclosure under the Act cannot reasonably be severed from the record under s. 4(2)

The applicant, a former Ministry employee, requested records related to an investigation into his conduct. The Ministry provided severed copies of the investigation report and severed copies of interview transcripts, but said it could not provide copies of the audiotapes of those interviews. Section 22 requires the Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal information. The Ministry has not complied with its duty under ss. 4(2) and 9(2) regarding copies of the audiotapes or their severing and must provide the applicant with copies of the audiotapes, severed as appropriate

No summary available

No summary available.

No summary available.

The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records of his stay at a mental health facility in 2012 from the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). The FHA disclosed most of the responsive records but withheld a few sentences under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the withheld personal information but ordered the FHA to provide the applicant with a summary of personal information that the third parties provided about the applicant to the FHA, under s. 22(5) of FIPPA.

An applicant made a request to the City of Vancouver (City) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the total amount of compensation paid to a former City employee during a specified date range. The City withheld the information on the basis that releasing it would reveal information that is protected by common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator found that settlement privilege applied to the information in dispute and that there was no overriding public interest that justified finding an exception to the privilege.

This inquiry concerns the medical records of a deceased individual (the deceased). An applicant, who is the deceased’s mother, requested that Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA) provide her access to the deceased’s medical records. VCHA refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased 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 also on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the applicant was not making a request on behalf of the deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and confirmed VCHA’s decision to withhold the record under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.

A complainant complained about BC Ferries’ decision to not waive a fee to provide him access to a record about confidential settlement agreements. The adjudicator found the complainant had not proven he could not afford to pay the fee under s. 75(5)(a) or that the record relates to a matter of public interest under s. 75(5)(b). The adjudicator confirmed BC Ferries’ decision to not excuse the complainant from paying the fee.

The applicant requested records of any daycare subsidy paid to his ex-spouse for their son. The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) refused access to the information on the basis that the applicant was not acting “for” or “on behalf of” his son and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the applicant’s ex-spouse’s personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting “for” or “on behalf of” his son and that MCFD was required to refuse access to some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s.22(1).

An applicant requested records that related to himself, his deceased son and his son’s death. The applicant made the request on his own behalf and on behalf of his son. The Ministry decided that the applicant’s request was not properly made on behalf of his son and he was not authorized to exercise his son’s access rights under FIPPA. It provided some records in response to the applicant’s own request but refused to disclose parts of them and other records under ss. 3 (scope of the Act), 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) and 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as ss. 77(1) and 77(2)(b) of the Child, Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA) and s. 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). The adjudicator determined that the applicant was not acting on behalf of his son and was not authorized to exercise his son’s access rights under FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry correctly applied ss. 13, 14 and 15(1)(l). The adjudicator also concluded that s. 22(1) of FIPPA and ss. 77(1) and 77(2)(b) of the CFCSA and s. 110 of the YCJA applied to some of the information. It was not necessary for the adjudicator to consider s. 3 of FIPPA.

The applicant requested copies of all discharge summaries relating to her deceased husband. The Hospital withheld the records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to act on behalf of the deceased and because it considered disclosure to be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The Adjudicator found that the applicant’s request was not made on behalf of the deceased individual and that disclosure of the records would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA.

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.

The applicant requested a copy of her deceased mother’s medical records. VIHA refused to disclose the records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to act on behalf of her deceased mother and because it considered disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not authorized to act on behalf of her deceased mother and that disclosure of the medical records would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA.

Commissioner's ruling on jurisdiction to hold an inquiry on records and correspondence submitted to a Special Committee of the Legislative Assembly held by the Office of the Clerk of Committees of the Legislative Assembly.

Applicant requested her personal information from BCIT, which failed to respond to her access request. BCIT responded, almost a year and a half later, after intervention by this Office. BCIT’s response addressed only part of the applicant’s request. BCIT found not to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty to respond without delay and to respond openly, accurately and completely. BCIT found not to have responded when required by s. 7(1). Reasons given for response were inadequate. BCIT ordered to conduct further searches and to respond to applicant’s request completely and accurately. Conditions imposed respecting timing of further search and of response to applicant. Having failed to make submissions in inquiry, BCIT found not to be authorized by ss. 13, 15 or 17 to refuse to disclose information in the one disputed record. Minimal third party personal information in record appropriately severed under s. 22(1).

No summary available

The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records of his stay at a mental health facility in 2012 from the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). The FHA disclosed most of the responsive records but withheld a few sentences under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the withheld personal information but ordered the FHA to provide the applicant with a summary of personal information that the third parties provided about the applicant to the FHA, under s. 22(5) of FIPPA.

This inquiry concerns the medical records of a deceased individual (the deceased). An applicant, who is the deceased’s mother, requested that Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA) provide her access to the deceased’s medical records. VCHA refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased 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 also on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the applicant was not making a request on behalf of the deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and confirmed VCHA’s decision to withhold the record under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.

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 Vancouver Island Health Authority (Health Authority) 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 a requested record. The Health Authority argued an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that the applicant already has a copy of the disputed record. The adjudicator determined there is an arguable case that merits adjudication as to whether the applicant is entitled to access the record at issue under FIPPA. Therefore, the adjudicator dismissed the Health Authority’s s. 56(1) application and directed the matter to an inquiry.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) for access to records relating to her deceased son. The Ministry responded by saying that the applicant had not met the requirements of s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation (Regulation). These two sections set out who may make an access request on behalf of a deceased individual. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision that the applicant is not making the access request on behalf of the deceased in accordance with s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Regulation.

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.

No summary available.

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).

The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records of his stay at a mental health facility in 2012 from the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). The FHA disclosed most of the responsive records but withheld a few sentences under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the withheld personal information but ordered the FHA to provide the applicant with a summary of personal information that the third parties provided about the applicant to the FHA, under s. 22(5) of FIPPA.

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 the applicant access to the records under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased. The adjudicator further found that disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.

An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to all medical records relating to his mother (the deceased). FHA refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased in accordance with s. 5 of FIPPA. FHA also refused him access to the records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased and disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS) for access to records relating to her deceased father (the deceased). BCEHS responded that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased and refused the applicant access to the responsive records under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased. The adjudicator also found that BCEHS was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s. 22(1).

An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a record related to a personal injury claim they made regarding a motor vehicle accident. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provided the applicant with partial access to this record, but withheld information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found ICBC correctly applied ss. 14 and 22(1) to some of the information withheld in the responsive record. However, the adjudicator determined ICBC was not required or authorized under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22(1) to withhold other information and ordered ICBC to provide the applicant with access to that information.

The applicant requested records related to her deceased mother’s dental care. The public body refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of her deceased mother in accordance with 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 (Regulation). The public body also refused her access to the records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased and disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.

The District of Summerland (District) requested authorization under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to disregard ten outstanding requests from the respondent. The adjudicator found that the requests were both “systematic” and “excessively broad” and that responding to them would interfere unreasonably with the District’s operations. The adjudicator authorized the District to disregard the ten requests and, for three years, to respond to one request at a time from the respondent or his family.

An access request was made for copies of the 1999 disclosure statements that two municipal election candidates were required to file under the Vancouver Charter. Section 65 of the Vancouver Charter requires the City to make such statements available for public inspection. It also requires the City to obtain from anyone inspecting a statement a signed statement of restricted purpose and use. This requirement conflicts or is inconsistent with public access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for unrestricted purposes and uses. Under s. 8.1 of the Vancouver Charter, s. 65 of the Vancouver Charter overrides the Act to the extent of any conflict or inconsistency. In the absence of a right of access under the Act, the applicant has no right to copies under ss. 5(2) and 9(2)(a) of the Act.

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.

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 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.

A complainant complained about BC Ferries’ decision to not waive a fee to provide him access to a record about confidential settlement agreements. The adjudicator found the complainant had not proven he could not afford to pay the fee under s. 75(5)(a) or that the record relates to a matter of public interest under s. 75(5)(b). The adjudicator confirmed BC Ferries’ decision to not excuse the complainant from paying the fee.

The complainant made access requests to all ministries of the government of British Columbia and the Office of the Premier. The requests were for lists of certain file and folder names on the electronic devices used by the Premier, Minister or Minister of State for each public body. In response, the public bodies stated that the requested records do not exist and they were not required to create them. The public bodies argued that they had fulfilled their duties to the applicant under s. 6(2) (duty to assist applicants) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The complainant complained to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner about the public bodies’ response. The adjudicator determined that the public bodies were required under s. 6(2) to create the requested records.

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.

The duty to assist citizens with requests to access records is an essential component of BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). It is important that public bodies embrace this responsibility by responding openly, accurately and completely, and without delay to all requests.

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.

In Order F14-32 it was held that the Ministry was not authorized to sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that those portions were “out of scope of request”. The Ministry sought a reconsideration of Order F14-32 on that issue. FIPPA does not authorize the Ministry to withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that they are outside the scope of the applicant’s request. It is ordered to consider the request as it relates to those portions and disclose them except with respect to information to which exceptions to disclosure set out in Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA apply.

A journalist requested full details of all deaths investigated by the Coroner over a 16 year period. He requested the information in one electronic record, or alternatively as several electronic records that could be linked with a unique identifier. The requested records do not exist in either format, and the Coroner submitted that it was not obliged to create the records under s. 6(2) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that that the Coroner was not obliged to create a single electronic record because doing so would unreasonably interfere with the Coroner’s operations (s. 6(2)(b)). The adjudicator determined that creating several electronic records (one for each table in the database) would not unreasonably interfere with the Coroner’s operations. However, the adjudicator concluded those records could not reasonably be severed (s. 4(2) of FIPPA), so the Coroner was not obliged to create them.

The applicant requested information about herself held by BC Ferries, particularly information related to an incident that occurred during her work as an equipment operator. BC Ferries withheld information claiming ss. 13, 15, 19 and 22 of FIPPA exemptions. With the exception of its reliance on s. 13 and a few pages that must be disclosed, BC Ferries properly applied disclosure exemptions to the record.

The City of Vancouver failed to respond to requests for records by two applicants within the timelines required by FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the City breached ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA, and ordered the City to respond to the requests for records by a specified deadline.

Adjudicator's decision that notes are not in the custody or under the control of UBC. Hearing will not proceed on whether UBC met its duty to assist under s.6 of FIPPA.

Applicant requested her ICBC claim files and files from her ICBC-appointed lawyer. ICBC disclosed many records, but refused access to others. Sections 14, 17 and 22 found to apply to some other remaining information. Section 14 found not to apply to two pages and s. 22 found not to apply to several records.

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

Applicant requested a list of all firearms matters that had proceeded to hearing. Only responsive record was a list created by legal counsel to track ongoing appeals. List withheld under s. 14. Record found to be privileged. Ministry found to have met its duty to assist. Ministry not required to create a record as contemplated by s. 6.

Applicant requested records related to his employment and promotion within UBC. UBC disclosed many records, withheld other records and information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22 and said other records were not relevant to the request. Applicant questioned search adequacy and objected to withholding of information. UBC applied s. 14 properly and, with some exceptions, also ss. 13(1) and 22. UBC searched adequately for responsive records, with one minor exception, for which it was ordered to search again. UBC ordered to disclose some information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22 and to provide a response on some records found to be relevant to request.

The applicant requested records relating to an investigation conducted by ICBC. He received a tape recording of an interview, but believed that the record had been altered. ICBC conducted an adequate search for records and there was no evidence of tampering.

The applicant requested access through the Internet to live webcam video feeds of two beehive burners. One of the Ministry’s regional managers is able to view the live feeds, which arrive over the Internet, on his computer. As the webcam feeds are live and image data is not recorded or stored, the data comprising the live feeds are not a “record” as defined in the Act. Since the Act only applies to records, the webcam feeds are not subject to the right of access

The applicant requested all records relating to him at the MAG. The MAG’s search for records was adequate and met its s. 6(1) duty. The MAG also correctly decided that other records and information were excepted from disclosure by s. 14 of the Act.

In response to the applicant’s request for all records containing personal information about him “at the University”, UVic disclosed many records but withheld portions of records under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14 and 22 of the Act. Applicant alleged that UVic failed to perform its search obligation under s. 6, but UVic was found to have undertaken a reasonable search for records. Section 25 did not require disclosure in the public interest. UVic was authorized to withhold information under ss. 13 and 14 (ss. 3(1)(c) and 22 having been removed from inquiry by the parties’ agreement).

Director found to have duty under Child, Family and Community Service Act to exercise such diligence in responding to an access request that it is not reasonable to believe records were omitted in a response to a request. The commissioner has jurisdiction to decide if duty met. Director found to have exercised such diligence that it is reasonable to conclude records were not omitted.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant made an access request to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). Despite two time extensions, the applicant submits the Ministry did not respond to their access request. The applicant asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the Ministry’s failure to respond to their access requests in accordance with the legislated response times under FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry did not perform its duty under ss. 6(1) and 7 to respond without delay in accordance with the required statutory deadlines. The Ministry was ordered to provide a response to the applicant’s access request by a set date.

An applicant made a request to the Interior Health Authority (Authority) for access to a variety of records. The applicant claimed the Authority did not respond to the access request 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 Authority’s alleged failure to respond to their access request in accordance with the legislated response times. The adjudicator found that the Authority did not perform its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 to respond without delay, in accordance with the required statutory deadlines. The adjudicator ordered the Authority to provide a compliant response to the applicant’s access request by a set date.

An applicant made a request to the City of Vancouver (City) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the total amount of compensation paid to a former City employee during a specified date range. The City withheld the information on the basis that releasing it would reveal information that is protected by common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator found that settlement privilege applied to the information in dispute and that there was no overriding public interest that justified finding an exception to the privilege.

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.

A complainant made 13 requests for video images of himself on transit vehicles from TransLink. TransLink responded denying access citing s. 6(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the recorded images stored on TransLink’s CCTV system were records as defined in Schedule 1 of FIPPA. He found that TransLink had incorrectly applied s. 6(2) and failed to meet its obligations under s. 6(1). He also found that FIPPA required TransLink to make every reasonable effort to retain copies of records responsive to requests until the complainant had exhausted all avenues of review. The adjudicator confirmed that TransLink’s responses to the complainant did not contravene ss. 8(1) or 9.

An individual requested from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry) any records regarding himself and his business. The Ministry responded to the request by providing the complainant with some records. The complainant complained that the Ministry had not conducted an adequate search for records in accordance with s. 6(1). The adjudicator found that Ministry had not conducted an adequate search in its first response to the request but subsequently provided an adequate response after a further search for records.

An individual requested from the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) any records that it had created for the Provincial Health Officer relating to the indoor setting type of Covid-19 transmission. PHSA responded to the request by providing the applicant with one record. The applicant complained that PHSA had not conducted an adequate search for records in accordance with s. 6(1). The adjudicator found that PHSA had conducted an adequate search.

An applicant requested a specific report and related appraisals from the City of Vancouver (City). The City withheld the report under ss. 12(3)(b) (local body confidences) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant also complained that the City did not conduct an adequate search for records as part of its duty to assist under s. 6(1). The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to the report but that the City did not fulfil its duty to assist under s. 6(1).

The applicant requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). In response, the Ministry provided 8,936 pages of responsive records, withholding some information under a number of different exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under ss. 13(1), and 14 and some of the information under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) and 18(a). The Ministry was required to withhold some information in dispute under ss. 12(1) and 22(1). However, the Ministry was required to disclose some of the information it withheld under ss. 12(1), 16(1)(a)(iii), 18(a) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 16(1)(c) did not apply to the information considered under that section. The Ministry also withheld some information under common law settlement privilege, but did not provide the records in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to produce the records for the purpose of adjudicating settlement privilege. The applicant also complained that the Ministry did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for text messages and deleted emails.

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.

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 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.

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.

An applicant requested access to records in her human resources file from Vancouver Coastal Health, including records related to her work performance. Vancouver Coastal Health provided some records, but it refused to disclose some information under ss. 13 (advice and recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Vancouver Coastal Health also argued that certain records were outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(d) or were not responsive to the applicant’s access request. The adjudicator determined that Vancouver Coastal Health was required to withhold some information under s. 22(1), but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13 and 22(1) did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 3(1)(d) did not apply to certain records; however, the adjudicator determined that those records were not responsive to the applicant’s access request. As a result, the adjudicator concluded Vancouver Coastal Health had performed its duty under s. 6(1) to respond to the access request openly, accurately and completely.

A society complained to the OIPC that the City of Vancouver (City) did not meet its duty to assist under s. 6(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the City did not respond openly, accurately and completely to the access request and that the City did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the City to conduct another search. In addition, the adjudicator found that certain records were responsive records in the custody and control of the City under s. 4 of FIPPA.

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.

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.

A journalist requested copies of an employee’s emails for a 12-hour period in April 2017. The Office of the Premier disclosed three pages of records and said it was not obliged under s. 6(1) (duty to assist an applicant) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to search the employee’s Recover Deleted Items folder for any other responsive records. The adjudicator found that the Office of the Premier should have searched this folder in the first instance and that, therefore, it had not complied with its duty under s. 6(1). At the time of the inquiry, the requested emails were no longer in the employee’s Recover Deleted Items folder because the system had automatically deleted them from that folder and saved them to a backup server. The adjudicator further found that, in view of the complexity, effort and cost involved, the Office of the Premier is not obliged to restore the emails from the backup in order to respond to the journalist’s access request.

The applicant made a request for records to the Ministry. Approximately seven months later, the Ministry still had not provided the applicant with a response. The Ministry was found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA and was ordered to provide the response by June 24, 2016.

The applicant requested witness statements, interview summaries and transcripts from the Vancouver Police Department (“VPD”) under FIPPA. The VPD withheld all of the records. The adjudicator found that the VPD was authorized to refuse access, on the basis that the records revealed information relating to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion under s. 15(1)(g) of FIPPA.

In Order F14-27 it was held that VIHA could not sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that those portions were ‘outside the scope’ of the applicant’s request. A reconsideration was sought and this order decides that issue. FIPPA does not authorize a public body to sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that they are outside the scope of an applicant’s request. VIHA is ordered to consider the applicant’s request as it relates to those portions and disclose them with the exception of any information to which exceptions to disclosure set out in Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA apply.

The applicant requested records related to a pulp mill. Approximately eight months later, the Ministry still had not provided the applicant with a response. The Ministry was found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA and was ordered to provide the response by June 24, 2013.

The applicant requested records related to the use of amplified sound in parks for 17 events. After a delay of several weeks, the Board responded by issuing a fee estimate of $510 for searching for the records, plus photocopying and delivery charges. The applicant requested a fee waiver to which the Board did not respond. The Board failed to comply with its duty to respond on time to the request for records and the request for a fee waiver. The fee is excused and the Board is ordered to respond to the request.

The applicant requested a variety of records dating back five years. The Law Society issued fee estimates totalling just over $117,000 for responding to the requests. The applicant complained to this Office about the amounts of the fee estimates and about the Law Society’s “delay” in responding. Mediation led to the consolidation of the requests and a revised fee estimate of $11,000. The applicant paid the estimated fee and the Law Society disclosed records in phases over ten months. The final processing costs were about $27,000. The applicant remained dissatisfied with the amount of the fee and with the pace of disclosure and these matters proceeded to inquiry. The applicant was found to be a “commercial applicant”. The Law Society was found to have included certain charges which were not allowable under FIPPA or its Regulation and was ordered to re-calculate the fee. The revised fee was reduced by 20% because, among other things, the Law Society did not take steps earlier to expedite processing of the request.

The third-party casino operators requested further consideration of one aspect of the s. 22 guidelines contained in Order F08-03. Further submissions are permitted on that issue. In the meantime, the Ministry must disclose the s. 86 reports, as ordered in Order F08-03, with the exception of the information required to be withheld according to the guidelines in Order F08-03 and the names of casino employees acting in a professional or employment capacity, the disclosure of which remains unresolved pending further consideration of s. 22 arising from Order F08-03.

The University of Victoria Environmental Law Clinic, on behalf of a group of eight environmental organizations, brought a complaint against three ministries alleging that there was a system-wide pattern of acting to frustrate environmental groups seeking records under the Freedom of Information and Protection Act (“FIPPA”). The groups alleged that there were routine delays in responding to access requests, excessive censoring of records, excessive and unreasonable fees and frequent and unjustified denials of fee waivers. Any one of these allegations, if proven, would be a violation of the s. 6 FIPPA duty to assist applicants. A preliminary investigation determined that while the complaint against the Ministry of Forests was not substantiated, there was some basis for the allegation of systemic problems with requests made to the Ministry of Environment. The parties met and developed a mutually acceptable action plan to resolve the complainants concerns.

Senior Adjudicator's ruling on applicant's request to expand the scope of an inquiry at the inquiry stage.

Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld and severed others under ss. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22. Ministry required to withhold information under s. 12(1) and authorized to withhold information under s. 13(1) and s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information that it withheld under s. 17 and the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Ministry also ordered to conduct another search for responsive records.

The applicant requested a copy of the report evaluating a research proposal that he submitted for funding through Forestry Innovation Investment. The Ministry provided the applicant with the requested record, which included comments made by the individuals who had reviewed the proposal, but severed the names of the reviewers under s. 22 of FIPPA. The Ministry also later claimed that s. 17 applied and authorized it to sever the names of the reviewers. The statutory presumption under s. 22(3) does not apply in this case. However, there are relevant factors under s. 22(2) that weigh against disclosure of the reviewers’ names and s. 22(1) does apply. Since the Ministry is required by s. 22(1) to sever the names of the reviewers, s. 17 need not be considered.

Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56.

The Ministry, which conceded that it had not responded in time to the applicant`s access to information request, is ordered to respond by a specific date.

The Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its destination casino project. The BC Lottery Corporation disclosed some records and withheld and severed others, mainly under ss. 14, 17(1) and 21(1). It also argued that records and information fell outside the scope of the request by virtue of their date or subject matter. Section 14 found to apply but not ss. 17(1) and 21(1). Other records and information found not to be within the scope of the request.

Applicant sought records relating to an Employment Standards Tribunal matter in which it was involved. Ministry is authorized to withhold information under s. 14, no waiver of privilege having occurred. Because its response to the applicant’s request was outside the s. 7 time limit, the Ministry failed to discharge its s. 6(1) duty to assist the applicant. Consistent with past decisions, no order is necessary in that respect.

The applicant requested access to records relating to a public report on offshore oil and gas exploration prepared for the Minister of Energy and Mines by a panel of three scientific experts. For records in the possession of the Ministry, s. 12(1) applied to a small amount of information, ss. 13(1) and 16(1) applied to some other information and s. 25(1) did not apply. Some information in these records was also incorrectly withheld as not responsive to request but may be withheld under ss. 13(1) and 16(1). Records in the possession of panel members or the panel secretariat are under the control of the Ministry and subject to an access request under the Act.

Applicant requested records related to a property. Ministry responded nine months later. Ministry found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7. Ministry ordered under s. 58(3)(c) to refund fees applicant paid

Applicant requested records related to a property. Ministry responded nine months later. Ministry found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7. Ministry ordered under s. 58(3)(c) to refund fees applicant paid

Applicant requested records related to his interactions with a number of named doctors at the PHSA. The PHSA withheld some information under ss. 14 and 22. Applicant objected to decision to withhold information and also questioned the completeness of the PHSA’s response. The PHSA applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases s. 22. The PHSA is ordered to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22. The PHSA did not show that it complied with s. 6(1) in its response and is ordered to do so.

The applicant requested records related to interactions between the PHSA and CWHC and the BC Health Care Risk Management Society. The PHSA had no responsive records and fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in conducting a search for responsive records.

The applicant requested records identifying legal counsel in a particular matter. The PHSA said no records exist. The PHSA complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records and accounting for the non-existence of such records.

The Ministry took 10 months to respond, and then only partially, to the applicant’s request for access to what the Ministry describes as a “file box full of records”. The Ministry failed to comply with its s. 6(1) duty to make every reasonable effort to respond to the request without delay and is ordered to respond completely.

The public body took 10 months to respond to the applicant’s request for access to records. The public body failed to comply with its s. 6(1) duty to make every reasonable effort to respond to the request without delay.

The Ministry took 10 months to respond, and did so only partially, to the applicant’s request for access to records. The Ministry failed to comply with its s. 6 duty to make every reasonable effort to respond to the request without delay and is ordered to respond completely.

The applicant requested records relating to the review by two experts of an appraisal conducted by the applicant. The City conducted an adequate search for records. It does not have control over records in the custody of the two experts. The City did not fail in its duty to assist under s. 6 as a result of not requesting that the two experts provide a copy of their records for release to the applicant.

Applicant requested records related to himself. PHSA disclosed large number of records and withheld others under ss. 12(3), 13(1), 14 and 22. Applicant disputed decision to withhold information and also complained about delay in PHSA’s response and records search. PHSA found to have applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases also ss. 13(1) and 22. PHSA found not to have complied with its duties under s. 6(1) and ordered to search again.

Applicant requested records related to an investigation. The PHSA provided some responsive records and said it could not locate any others. The PHSA is found to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.

The applicant made a request for records related to the Core Services Review of the BC Ambulance Service. The Ministry denied access under ss. 12(1), 13, and 17. Prior to the inquiry, the Ministry released some records, fulfilling its duties under s. 4(2). The Ministry carried out its duties under s. 6. Section 25 does not apply. The Ministry applied s. 12(1) appropriately.

The applicant requested access to records concerning the public body’s response to a complaint relating to the protection of a stream. The public body released records but refused to provide information that would reveal the identity of a third-party complainant. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the disputed information.

The applicant made an access request to the Ministry for records pertaining to a child custody matter involving her daughter, now an adult. The Ministry released some records but withheld records contained in the family advocate’s file. Its search for records was adequate. The Ministry is not authorized to withhold information under s. 14, but s. 22 requires the Ministry to withhold the same information.

Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry provided records to the applicant but severed some information and withheld other records. Section 22 requires the Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal information. Ministry found to have applied s. 22 properly to the severed and withheld records and to have complied with s. 6(1) duty in searching for records.

Applicant requested records related to her academic appeal. UBC provided records, withholding other records and information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13(1), 14 and 22. UBC found to have applied ss. 3(1)(b), and 14 properly and, with one exception, s. 22 as well. UBC ordered to disclose some personal information related to applicant. Section 13(1) found not to apply in all cases and UBC ordered to disclose draft letters.

Canadian Pacific Railway requested records relating to its Arbutus railway corridor lands. The City of Vancouver failed to comply with s. 6(1) by responding to the access request outside the legislated time frame, without seeking an extension of time under s. 10(1). Although the City also initially failed to comply with s. 6(1) by inadequately searching for the requested records and incompletely responding to the access request, this was rectified by subsequent searches and disclosure to the

Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry severed some information. Applicant requested review of response, saying certain records missing. Ministry found to have complied with s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and to have applied ss. 13(1) and 22 properly to some information.

Applicant requested records relating to a complaint she made to the College about a dentist. The College properly withheld the personal information of third parties withheld under s. 22. The College performed its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search for records responsive to the request

Through her legal counsel, the applicant made a request to the public body for records regarding a complaint she had made respecting mental health services she received from the public body. The public body’s limited severing of personal information from a consultant’s report that had been prepared in response to the complaint is upheld under s. 22. The public body also discharged its duty to the applicant to conduct an adequate search for records.

The applicant sought access to records relating to property assessments conducted by the BCAA under the Assessment Act. Section 25(1)(b) does not require the BCAA to disclose them and s. 14 authorizes the BCAA to refuse to disclose the records. The BCAA failed to discharge its s. 6(1) duty to respond without delay, but its ultimate response means no remedy is available respecting its late reply. Since the BCAA has not established that its response to the applicant is complete, it must perform another search for records.

The applicant in this case is the daughter of a woman whose attempt to revisit a mediated settlement of her previous access request to SFU was dealt with in Order 01-16. In Order 01-16, it was held that SFU need not process the woman’s new access request. The evidence establishes that the daughter’s access request, made 10 days after Order 01-16 was issued, was made on her mother’s behalf, as an attempt to circumvent Order 01-16. This is an abuse of process and will not be allowed. The principle of res judicata also applies. SFU’s decision on the merits of the daughter’s access request, as an arm’s-length applicant, is upheld.

The applicant made a request to the Ministry for a copy of records pertaining to two investigations related to him. The Ministry’s search for records was adequate and it met its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search.

The Ministry extended the time for responding to the HEU’s access request by 30 days, but did not seek permission for a further extension. The Ministry eventually provided a partial response, of some 534 pages, roughly six months after receiving the request. The Ministry says it still needs more time to consult another public body about some 139 pages of the remaining 336 pages of records. It asks to be given until January 29, 2003 to respond. Having failed to comply with its duty under s. 6(1) of the Act to respond completely within the required time, the Ministry is ordered to respond before November 30, 2002.

The applicant made two requests to the WCB for a copy of records pertaining to him. The WCB’s search for records was adequate and it met its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search.

Applicant requested copies of all of his personal information from his employer, a youth correctional facility, and the Ministry’s regional, personnel and financial services offices. Ministry initially failed to respond completely on one set of records but ultimately discharged its s. 6(1) duty. No order to conduct further searches or to provide a complete response is necessary.

Applicant requested copies of correspondence relating to his rent subsidy. Commission provided copies of records it was able to locate. Commission explained why no further records were available. Ministry found to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty to assist the applicant.

The applicant requested a copy of all WCB records pertaining to her that were contained outside of her claim file. The WCB’s search for records was adequate and it met its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search

Applicant requested review of BC Archives’ failure to respond within s. 7 time limits and to take a time extension under s. 10. BC Archives found not to have met its ss. 6(1) and 7 duties but not found to have breached s. 10.

The applicant requested employment records relating to herself for a specific period of time. The Ministry disclosed records, withholding some information under ss. 13(1) and 22. Applicant requested review of severing and Ministry’s search. Ministry disclosed most s. 13(1) information and some records it had inadvertently originally missed in copying records. The Ministry has complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and properly withheld third-party personal information under s. 22. No order is necessary regarding s. 13(1).

Applicant requested copies of correspondence from 1993. Ministry provided copies of records it was able to locate. Further searches yielded no more records. Ministry found to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for records.

The applicant requested all records relating to him at the WCRB. The WCRB correctly decided that certain of the responsive records are excluded from the Act’s scope by ss. 3(1)(b) and (c). The WCRB’s search for records was adequate and met its s. 6(1) duty. The WCRB also correctly decided that other records and information were excepted from disclosure by ss. 14 and 22 of the Act.

The applicant requested all records relating to him at the MSDL. The MSDL’s initial search for records was not adequate, but its later search efforts met its s. 6(1) duty. The MSDL correctly decided that the one record in dispute is excepted from disclosure by s. 14 of the Act.

The applicants made an access request to the City that contained a number of elements and asked for answers to questions. In disclosing some responsive records, making others available for inspection, and answering questions raised in the request, the City discharged its duty to assist the applicants under s. 6(1) of the Act.

The applicant requested records relating to the College’s accidental disclosure, in 1997, of prescription-related information of two hospital patients. The College initially failed to conduct a reasonable search for records, but corrected that failure by searching again for records during mediation. The College is authorized to withhold a legal opinion under s. 14. The College is required by s. 22(1) to withhold third party personal information.

Applicant requested records related to an investigation he believed had been done about him during a job competition. Ministry treated request as one for updated disclosure and said it had no records post-dating earlier request. Applicant requested review of adequacy of search. Ministry found to have conducted adequate search

The applicant, a union representing ICBC employees, submitted a series of requests for information on several hundred senior ICBC employees. ICBC created software in order to respond and then provided computer-generated records to the applicant. The applicant also submitted requests for records on alternatives for ICBC’s corporate structure, to which ICBC responded by providing briefings. The applicant requested reviews of ICBC’s failure to respond in time, of a fee estimate, of ICBC’s compliance with its s. 6 duty to assist and of ICBC’s compliance with its s. 8 duty to inform the applicant of a decision to refuse access. ICBC is found to have calculated the estimated fee in compliance with s. 75. ICBC is found largely not to have complied with its s. 6, 7 or 8 duties, but no order is necessary respecting ss. 6-8

Applicant made two requests for access to specific dated letters in the custody of UBC. UBC disclosed all but one, which could not be found and which UBC had reason to believe did not exist. UBC fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for records

Applicant requested records related to communications regarding a legal action between himself, on his son’s behalf, and ICBC. ICBC disclosed records but applicant not satisfied with ICBC’s search. ICBC searched again, disclosed more records and withheld others under s. 14. ICBC found to have misinterpreted request and to have failed to conduct a proper search. ICBC found to have later rectified its failure to interpret the request reasonably, but some records it found and considered still out of scope were in fact subject to the request. ICBC ordered to process additional responsive records. ICBC also found to have withheld records properly under s. 14

Applicant requested records about himself in 1998 and again in 2000. In 1998, the VPD provided all releasable responsive records and, in 2000, only those releasable records that post-dated records from 1998 request. In 2000, applicant again wanted disclosure of all records, including those released in 1998. VPD found to have met its s. 6(1) duty in supplying updated disclosure only.

Applicant sought his own claim file records from the WCB. WCB provided some records immediately and provided others later, in stages. WCB discovered and provided further records during the course of mediation by this Office. WCB found to ultimately have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty. Section 22(3)(a) found to apply to names and medical information of other WCB claimants in requested records.

Applicant made access requests, to the two public bodies, regarding communication of his personal information from one to the other. He received records from each, but alleged that both public bodies failed to conduct adequate searches for responsive records. Both public bodies were found to have conducted adequate searches for records as required by s. 6(1).

Applicant sought vendor numbers for all ICBC suppliers whose status as such had, throughout ICBCs existence, been revoked, reinstated, suspended or refused. ICBC refused disclosure of certain records under ss. 17 and 21(1)(c)(iii). ICBC’s initial submission consisted of its disclosure of a computer printout listing suppliers whose numbers had been suspended or revoked and abandoned its reliance on ss. 17 and 21. ICBC at that time said it kept no record of, and could not generate a record of, any businesses who had been refused supplier numbers when they applied or of suppliers whose supplier numbers had been reinstated after suspension or revocation. ICBC is not obliged under s. 6(2) to create a record responding to the applicant’s request.

Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1), as information does not consist of advice or recommendations. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld under that section, but s. 22(1) applies, in part on the basis of s. 22(3)(a), to some of the same information. Section 22(3)(d) does not apply to information about ministry employees’ work-related actions, so s. 22(1) does not apply to that information. Ministry found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.

The applicant requested records from the City relating to a complaint he made against a member of Vancouver Police Department. City responded that it was unable to locate any records in its custody or under its control. City found to have conducted reasonable search under s. 6(1).

Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information found in records relating to SFU’s review of a third party’s employment performance or associated records. Public interest disclosure not required. Personal information was not covered by s. 22(4). SFU was required to disclose minor amounts of information that was not covered by s. 22(1).

As one of many access requests to the VPB, the applicant sought copies of correspondence connected in some respect with his Police Act complaints against various members of the Vancouver Police Department. VPB found to have complied with its duty under s. 6(1) to search for records.

Applicants requested lists of suppliers who received payments under $10,000 for fiscal years ending 1996, 1997, 1998. City provided 1998 list first and 1996 and 1997 lists later; City found to have complied with duty under s. 6(1) to respond accurately and completely to the request.

Applicant sought records from ICBC related to personal injury claims he had made, some of which resulted in litigation. ICBC’s responses to applicant, in terms of its reasons for refusal to disclose and descriptions of records, were adequate for the purposes of ss. 6(1) and 8(1), though more detail was desirable. ICBC’s delay in responding was contrary to the Act in relation to one request. After close of inquiry, ICBC abandoned reliance on s. 14 and s. 17 for almost all records. ICBC would not have succeeded in s. 14 or s. 17 claims for released records. ICBC is required in each case, however, to prove application of litigation privilege to each responsive record, by showing that both elements of the common law test for that privilege have been met in relation to each record. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interests from disclosure of specific information, on a record by record basis. ICBC properly claimed s. 14 for contents of defence counsel’s file, which it continued to withhold. ICBC was required by s. 22 to withhold small amounts of third party personal information.

Applicant sought gaming policy records from the Ministry of Employment and Investment and two other public bodies. Applicant named several records he said should be in public body’s possession. Public body found to not have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty, initially or during review and inquiry processes. Public body ordered to conduct further search for records.

Applicant sought gaming policy records from this British Columbia Lottery Corporation and other public bodies. Applicant named several records he said should be in public body’s possession, though it did not produce them. Public body found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty.

Applicant sought gaming policy records from the British Columbia Racing Commission and two other public bodies. Applicant named several records he said should be in public body’s possession, though it did not produce them. Public body found not to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty initially, but further search not ordered, as public body subsequently fulfilled its s. 6(1) search obligation.

Public body complied with its duty to applicant under s. 6(1) in its search for requested record.

Applicant requested her personal information from BCIT, which failed to respond to her access request. BCIT responded, almost a year and a half later, after intervention by this Office. BCIT’s response addressed only part of the applicant’s request. BCIT found not to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty to respond without delay and to respond openly, accurately and completely. BCIT found not to have responded when required by s. 7(1). Reasons given for response were inadequate. BCIT ordered to conduct further searches and to respond to applicant’s request completely and accurately. Conditions imposed respecting timing of further search and of response to applicant. Having failed to make submissions in inquiry, BCIT found not to be authorized by ss. 13, 15 or 17 to refuse to disclose information in the one disputed record. Minimal third party personal information in record appropriately severed under s. 22(1).

Public body complied with its duty to applicant under s. 6(1) in its search for a specific individual’s “job description”. Public body found, but did not provide applicant with, a “classification questionnaire”, a record with a different name that set out the functions and duties of the person’s position as it was in 1995.

Public body disclosed records in response to applicant’s request for records relating to a land development. Public body found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duties for most of request, but not regarding one class of records.

Applicant requested Board records relating to a previous labour relations matter in which she was involved. Board properly withheld some records because they were personal notes, communications or draft decisions of persons acting in a quasi judicial capacity as contemplated by s. 3(1)(b). Board’s search efforts fulfilled its s. 6(1) obligation.

Allegation that public body failed to assist applicant not established. Evidence did not establish disappearance or suppression of requested records. Public body adopted a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the applicant's requests and was justified in applying s. 14 to notes of telephone advice from its lawyer and s. 22 to names of confidential referees. It was permissible for the public body to combine three requests for closely related material for the purpose of calculating 'free' location and retrieval time under s. 75(2)(a) of the Act.

Applicant sought copies of all records relating to her dental treatment, including treatment charts, by various dentists and at a clinic. College disclosed 27 records and severed one record under s. 22 of the Act. Applicant considered College's response incomplete, saying it failed to provide all records responsive to her request. Applicant sent follow-up letter to College, to which College replied, clarifying its initial response. College found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duties.

Applicant complained to UBC about his treatment by UBC staff. He later sought copies of all records relating to investigation of his complaint. UBC disclosed 45 pages of records without any severing. Applicant alleged UBC failed to provide records responsive to his request. UBC found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duties.

Applicant made a series of requests for access to his personal information. UBC disclosed large amounts of information, but withheld some third party personal information, information subject to solicitor client privilege, and advice or recommendations. UBC was authorized to withhold privileged information and some advice or recommendations. UBC was required to withhold third party personal information that would identify individuals who gave confidential evaluations of the applicant, but UBC ordered to comply with s. 22(5) duty to provide the applicant with summaries of those evaluations. UBC was found to have fulfilled its duty to assist the applicant. No evidence of bias on the part of UBC employees handling the applicant’s access requests at the same time as appeal processes involving the applicant.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available

No summary available

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available

No summary available.

No summary available

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summarye available

No summary available

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available

No summary available.

An applicant requested information about a medical program administered by the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA). In response, PHSA advised the applicant that it did not have responsive records in its custody or under its control and that it was not required to create responsive records under s. 6(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that s. 6(2) of FIPPA does not require PHSA to create records containing the information requested by the applicant.

An applicant requested the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to statistical information related to COVID-19 and vaccination status. PHSA argued that it did not have a record that responded to the request, and it was not required to create one under s. 6(2) (duty to assist applicant) of FIPPA. PHSA also said that if it was required to create a record, s. 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator confirmed that s. 6(2) does not require PHSA create the record requested by the applicant and it was not necessary to consider s. 19(1).

An applicant requested the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to statistical information related to COVID-19 and vaccination status. PHSA argued that it did not have a record that responded to the request, and it was not required to create one under s. 6(2) (duty to assist applicant) of FIPPA. PHSA also said that if it was required to create a record, s. 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator confirmed that s. 6(2) does not require PHSA create the record requested by the applicant and it was not necessary to consider s. 19(1).

The New Westminster Police Department (Department) requested authorization to disregard a portion of an access request under s. 43(c)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the request was not excessively broad and, therefore, did not authorize the Department to disregard the access request under s. 43(c)(i). The adjudicator also declined to permit the Department to disregard the access request under s. 43 generally.

An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to information revealing the total legal fees incurred by The Corporation of the District of Summerland (the District) at an arbitration and appeal for an employment law matter. The District withheld all of the information pertaining to legal fees under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (protection of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the aggregate sum of legal fees could not be withheld under s. 14 because there was no reasonable possibility that disclosure could reveal privileged communications. The adjudicator further found that the aggregated sum of fees was not personal information, so the District was not required or permitted to refuse disclosure under s. 22(1). Finally, the adjudicator required the District under s. 6(2) to create a record containing the aggregate sum because doing so would not unreasonably interfere with the District’s operations.

A complainant made 13 requests for video images of himself on transit vehicles from TransLink. TransLink responded denying access citing s. 6(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the recorded images stored on TransLink’s CCTV system were records as defined in Schedule 1 of FIPPA. He found that TransLink had incorrectly applied s. 6(2) and failed to meet its obligations under s. 6(1). He also found that FIPPA required TransLink to make every reasonable effort to retain copies of records responsive to requests until the complainant had exhausted all avenues of review. The adjudicator confirmed that TransLink’s responses to the complainant did not contravene ss. 8(1) or 9.

A complainant complained about BC Ferries’ decision to not waive a fee to provide him access to a record about confidential settlement agreements. The adjudicator found the complainant had not proven he could not afford to pay the fee under s. 75(5)(a) or that the record relates to a matter of public interest under s. 75(5)(b). The adjudicator confirmed BC Ferries’ decision to not excuse the complainant from paying the fee.

The complainant made access requests to all ministries of the government of British Columbia and the Office of the Premier. The requests were for lists of certain file and folder names on the electronic devices used by the Premier, Minister or Minister of State for each public body. In response, the public bodies stated that the requested records do not exist and they were not required to create them. The public bodies argued that they had fulfilled their duties to the applicant under s. 6(2) (duty to assist applicants) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The complainant complained to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner about the public bodies’ response. The adjudicator determined that the public bodies were required under s. 6(2) to create the requested records.

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.

The applicant requested records detailing what ministries were responsible for payments to certain government suppliers listed in the Public Accounts. The Ministry said that producing the record required it to manually process raw data that s. 6(2) of FIPPA did not obligate it to do. The Ministry is not required to create the records that need manual processing but is required, under s. 6(2) to create a record containing the raw data.

Two journalists requested records in an electronic format containing the names of government employees along with their salary expenses, job title and department. The Ministry replied that the record could not be created from a machine readable record in its custody or control using its normal hardware and software and technical expertise. The Ministry was not required to create the records at issue in the inquiry.

The applicant requested access to electronic copies of 70 fields of Foundation Skills Assessment student summary data for a certain period, in order to carry out statistical research on the data. The Ministry refused access under s. 22. In his inquiry submission, the applicant offered to reduce the scope of his request to a few fields. The Ministry provided three options for disclosure of the narrower set of data, with Personal Education Numbers (PENs) encrypted, which in its view would not unreasonably invade individual student privacy. Ministry is ordered to disclose data in accordance with the option involving disclosure of the narrowed data with PENs encrypted and populations or cells of fewer than five students suppressed.

Applicant requested certain information on test results. The PHSA said it did not have records requested and that it was not obliged under s. 6(2) to create a record to respond to the request. The records do not exist in machine-readable form and the PHSA is not obliged under s. 6(2) to create a record.

The VCHA is not authorized or required to withhold the entirety of some pages of records relating to incident reports by licensed residential community care facilities. The rest of the requested records contain personal information of residents that cannot reasonably be severed under s. 4(2). The VCHA may create a responsive non-identifying record under s. 6. The VCHA is not required to disclose information under s. 25(1).

The applicant, a journalist, requested access to records relating to prescription patterns for various drugs in British Columbia. She had made similar requests before and had written a number of newspaper articles about prescription of drugs for children and youth. The Ministry is not excused by s. 6(2) from creating the requested records. The requested records relate to a matter of public interest and the applicant is not making the request for a private purpose. The fee is excused under s. 75(5)(b)

The applicant sought access to an electronic copy of the Ministry’s computerized enforcement and compliance tracking system, ERA. The Ministry initially proposed giving the applicant a paper copy and estimated a fee. Discussions clarified that the applicant wanted an electronic copy of a snapshot, at a given date, of the ERA, with certain data entities and attributes deleted. The Ministry refused on three grounds: an electronic copy of the snapshot included computer software elements that are excluded from the definition of record in Schedule 1, s. 6(2) did not require it to create the requested record and s. 4(2) did not require it to sever the record. Section 6(2) requires the Ministry to create the electronic record that the applicant requested, but information excepted from disclosure under the Act cannot reasonably be severed from the record under s. 4(2)

The applicant, a union representing ICBC employees, submitted a series of requests for information on several hundred senior ICBC employees. ICBC created software in order to respond and then provided computer-generated records to the applicant. The applicant also submitted requests for records on alternatives for ICBC’s corporate structure, to which ICBC responded by providing briefings. The applicant requested reviews of ICBC’s failure to respond in time, of a fee estimate, of ICBC’s compliance with its s. 6 duty to assist and of ICBC’s compliance with its s. 8 duty to inform the applicant of a decision to refuse access. ICBC is found to have calculated the estimated fee in compliance with s. 75. ICBC is found largely not to have complied with its s. 6, 7 or 8 duties, but no order is necessary respecting ss. 6-8

Applicant sought vendor numbers for all ICBC suppliers whose status as such had, throughout ICBCs existence, been revoked, reinstated, suspended or refused. ICBC refused disclosure of certain records under ss. 17 and 21(1)(c)(iii). ICBC’s initial submission consisted of its disclosure of a computer printout listing suppliers whose numbers had been suspended or revoked and abandoned its reliance on ss. 17 and 21. ICBC at that time said it kept no record of, and could not generate a record of, any businesses who had been refused supplier numbers when they applied or of suppliers whose supplier numbers had been reinstated after suspension or revocation. ICBC is not obliged under s. 6(2) to create a record responding to the applicant’s request.

Applicants requested lists of suppliers who received payments under $10,000 for fiscal years ending 1996, 1997, 1998. City provided 1998 list first and 1996 and 1997 lists later; City found to have complied with duty under s. 6(1) to respond accurately and completely to the request.

No summary available.

No summary available.

No summary available

No summary available.

No summary available

No summary available.

An applicant requested from the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) statistical comparisons between individuals who had not been vaccinated and individuals who had recently been vaccinated as to rates of Covid-19 positive tests, hospitalizations and deaths. PHSA responded that the records did not exist and that s. 6(2) did not require it to create the records because it could not create them using its normal hardware, software or technical expertise and without unreasonably interfering with its operations. PHSA also responded that, if it had to create the records, then it would withhold all the information in those records under s. 19(1) (harm to public safety). The adjudicator found that s. 6(2) did not require the PHSA to create the requested records.

The complainant is a former police officer who requested records from the Nelson Police Department (NPD). After receiving the request, NPD produced a fee estimate under s. 75(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), which the complainant asked the OIPC to review. The adjudicator found that the complainant’s request was for his own personal information and therefore, under s. 75(3) of FIPPA, NPD was not authorized to charge a fee. Given this, the adjudicator found it unnecessary to also consider whether the fee was properly calculated under s. 75(1) of FIPPA and Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation.

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.

No summary available

An applicant made a request to the Interior Health Authority (Authority) for access to a variety of records. The applicant claimed the Authority did not respond to the access request 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 Authority’s alleged failure to respond to their access request in accordance with the legislated response times. The adjudicator found that the Authority did not perform its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 to respond without delay, in accordance with the required statutory deadlines. The adjudicator ordered the Authority to provide a compliant response to the applicant’s access request by a set date.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

The applicant made a request for records to the Ministry. Approximately seven months later, the Ministry still had not provided the applicant with a response. The Ministry was found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA and was ordered to provide the response by June 24, 2016.

In Order F14-32 it was held that the Ministry was not authorized to sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that those portions were “out of scope of request”. The Ministry sought a reconsideration of Order F14-32 on that issue. FIPPA does not authorize the Ministry to withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that they are outside the scope of the applicant’s request. It is ordered to consider the request as it relates to those portions and disclose them except with respect to information to which exceptions to disclosure set out in Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA apply.

The City of Vancouver failed to respond to requests for records by two applicants within the timelines required by FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the City breached ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA, and ordered the City to respond to the requests for records by a specified deadline.

The applicant requested records related to a pulp mill. Approximately eight months later, the Ministry still had not provided the applicant with a response. The Ministry was found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA and was ordered to provide the response by June 24, 2013.

Section 25 does not require the Ministry to disclose information in an outsource service contract in the public interest. Section 21(1) does not require the Ministry to refuse to disclose information as claimed by the third-party contractor. The Ministry is obliged to respond to the applicant on the applicability of all exceptions to disclosure, not just s. 21(1), since the third-party review requested by the contractor froze only the Ministry’s duty to respond to the access request for the information that was the subject of the third-party review.

The Ministry, which conceded that it had not responded in time to the applicant`s access to information request, is ordered to respond by a specific date.

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

Applicant requested records related to a property. Ministry responded nine months later. Ministry found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7. Ministry ordered under s. 58(3)(c) to refund fees applicant paid

Applicant requested records related to a property. Ministry responded nine months later. Ministry found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7. Ministry ordered under s. 58(3)(c) to refund fees applicant paid

The Ministry took 10 months to respond, and then only partially, to the applicant’s request for access to what the Ministry describes as a “file box full of records”. The Ministry failed to comply with its s. 6(1) duty to make every reasonable effort to respond to the request without delay and is ordered to respond completely.

The public body took 10 months to respond to the applicant’s request for access to records. The public body failed to comply with its s. 6(1) duty to make every reasonable effort to respond to the request without delay.

The Ministry took 10 months to respond, and did so only partially, to the applicant’s request for access to records. The Ministry failed to comply with its s. 6 duty to make every reasonable effort to respond to the request without delay and is ordered to respond completely.

Applicant requested records related to himself. PHSA disclosed large number of records and withheld others under ss. 12(3), 13(1), 14 and 22. Applicant disputed decision to withhold information and also complained about delay in PHSA’s response and records search. PHSA found to have applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases also ss. 13(1) and 22. PHSA found not to have complied with its duties under s. 6(1) and ordered to search again.

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.

The applicant, a union representing ICBC employees, submitted a series of requests for information on several hundred senior ICBC employees. ICBC created software in order to respond and then provided computer-generated records to the applicant. The applicant also submitted requests for records on alternatives for ICBC’s corporate structure, to which ICBC responded by providing briefings. The applicant requested reviews of ICBC’s failure to respond in time, of a fee estimate, of ICBC’s compliance with its s. 6 duty to assist and of ICBC’s compliance with its s. 8 duty to inform the applicant of a decision to refuse access. ICBC is found to have calculated the estimated fee in compliance with s. 75. ICBC is found largely not to have complied with its s. 6, 7 or 8 duties, but no order is necessary respecting ss. 6-8

The applicant requested access to her own personal information from SFU in 1998 and at that time requested a review of SFU’s decision to refuse access to certain information. That request for review was settled during mediation, during which SFU disclosed further information. Applicant later changed her mind and, in 2000, made the same access request to SFU for the same record. SFU refused to process the request or issue a decision. SFU argued that, because the matter was resolved during previous review request’s mediation, commissioner had (under the functus officio doctrine) no jurisdiction to conduct this inquiry. SFU also argued this inquiry could not question earlier mediation outcome on the bases of res judicata and issue estoppel. Settlement during mediation is not a ‘decision’ to which doctrines of functus officio, issue estoppel or res judicata apply. The commissioner has the authority, however, to control abuse of the Part 5 process by applicants. The Commissioner can, in an inquiry, decline to order a public body to process an access request where a number of conditions are met. Fairness is the touchstone in determining whether a later request should be allowed. Here, applicant’s second request was, in the circumstances, an abuse of that process and fairness does not require that the applicant be permitted to insist that the second request proceed. SFU not required to process second request.

No summary available

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant made an access request to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). Despite two time extensions, the applicant submits the Ministry did not respond to their access request. The applicant asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the Ministry’s failure to respond to their access requests in accordance with the legislated response times under FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry did not perform its duty under ss. 6(1) and 7 to respond without delay in accordance with the required statutory deadlines. The Ministry was ordered to provide a response to the applicant’s access request by a set date.

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.

A third-party requested a review of the public body’s decision regarding what information in their contract must not be disclosed under s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator expanded the scope of the inquiry to decide about all of the information the public body and the third party said must be withheld under s. 21(1), not just the severing in dispute between them. The adjudicator found that the public body was not required to refuse access to any part of the contract under s. 21(1) and ordered the public body to disclose it to the access applicant.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

The applicant requested records related to the use of amplified sound in parks for 17 events. After a delay of several weeks, the Board responded by issuing a fee estimate of $510 for searching for the records, plus photocopying and delivery charges. The applicant requested a fee waiver to which the Board did not respond. The Board failed to comply with its duty to respond on time to the request for records and the request for a fee waiver. The fee is excused and the Board is ordered to respond to the request.

The applicant requested a variety of records dating back five years. The Law Society issued fee estimates totalling just over $117,000 for responding to the requests. The applicant complained to this Office about the amounts of the fee estimates and about the Law Society’s “delay” in responding. Mediation led to the consolidation of the requests and a revised fee estimate of $11,000. The applicant paid the estimated fee and the Law Society disclosed records in phases over ten months. The final processing costs were about $27,000. The applicant remained dissatisfied with the amount of the fee and with the pace of disclosure and these matters proceeded to inquiry. The applicant was found to be a “commercial applicant”. The Law Society was found to have included certain charges which were not allowable under FIPPA or its Regulation and was ordered to re-calculate the fee. The revised fee was reduced by 20% because, among other things, the Law Society did not take steps earlier to expedite processing of the request.

WCWC requested public interest fee waiver which Ministry denied. Ministry was correct in finding that records do not relate to a matter of public interest. Ministry therefore acted properly in denying fee waiver request.

Applicant sought records relating to an Employment Standards Tribunal matter in which it was involved. Ministry is authorized to withhold information under s. 14, no waiver of privilege having occurred. Because its response to the applicant’s request was outside the s. 7 time limit, the Ministry failed to discharge its s. 6(1) duty to assist the applicant. Consistent with past decisions, no order is necessary in that respect.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

WCWC requested public interest fee waiver which Ministry denied. Ministry was correct in finding that records do not relate to a matter of public interest. Ministry therefore acted properly in denying fee waiver request.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant made an access request to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). Despite two time extensions, the applicant submits the Ministry did not respond to their access request. The applicant asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the Ministry’s failure to respond to their access requests in accordance with the legislated response times under FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry did not perform its duty under ss. 6(1) and 7 to respond without delay in accordance with the required statutory deadlines. The Ministry was ordered to provide a response to the applicant’s access request by a set date.

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.

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.

The applicant requested a variety of records dating back five years. The Law Society issued fee estimates totalling just over $117,000 for responding to the requests. The applicant complained to this Office about the amounts of the fee estimates and about the Law Society’s “delay” in responding. Mediation led to the consolidation of the requests and a revised fee estimate of $11,000. The applicant paid the estimated fee and the Law Society disclosed records in phases over ten months. The final processing costs were about $27,000. The applicant remained dissatisfied with the amount of the fee and with the pace of disclosure and these matters proceeded to inquiry. The applicant was found to be a “commercial applicant”. The Law Society was found to have included certain charges which were not allowable under FIPPA or its Regulation and was ordered to re-calculate the fee. The revised fee was reduced by 20% because, among other things, the Law Society did not take steps earlier to expedite processing of the request.

WCWC requested public interest fee waiver which Ministry denied. Ministry was correct in finding that records do not relate to a matter of public interest. Ministry therefore acted properly in denying fee waiver request.

The applicant requested a variety of records dating back five years. The Law Society issued fee estimates totalling just over $117,000 for responding to the requests. The applicant complained to this Office about the amounts of the fee estimates and about the Law Society’s “delay” in responding. Mediation led to the consolidation of the requests and a revised fee estimate of $11,000. The applicant paid the estimated fee and the Law Society disclosed records in phases over ten months. The final processing costs were about $27,000. The applicant remained dissatisfied with the amount of the fee and with the pace of disclosure and these matters proceeded to inquiry. The applicant was found to be a “commercial applicant”. The Law Society was found to have included certain charges which were not allowable under FIPPA or its Regulation and was ordered to re-calculate the fee. The revised fee was reduced by 20% because, among other things, the Law Society did not take steps earlier to expedite processing of the request.