Orders

An applicant requested information about himself from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under various sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(3)(a) of FIPPA (records to which FIPPA does not apply) did not apply. The adjudicator found that ss. 77(1) (identity of a person who made a child protection report) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during an assessment or investigation) of the CFCSA applied to most, but not all, of the information the Ministry withheld under those sections. The adjudicator found that the Ministry properly applied s. 14 of FIPPA (solicitor-client privilege), and that the Ministry was required to withhold most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.

An applicant made a request, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to the Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) for access to all correspondence between Island Health and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia regarding a specific series of events involving the applicant. Island Health withheld all the records responsive to the applicant’s request under s. 53 (confidential information) of the Health Professions Act and several exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA. The adjudicator found that Island Health was required to withhold most of the information in dispute under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA and was authorized to withhold some of the information in dispute under s.15(1)(d) (reveal confidential source of law enforcement information) of FIPPA. However, she found that Island Health was not authorized to withhold the other information in dispute under ss. 15(1)(a) (harm to law enforcement), 15(1)(d) or 19(1)(a) (harm to individual or public safety) of FIPPA. She found that FIPPA prevails over s. 53 of the Health Professions Act (HPA) and, therefore, Island Health was not required or authorized under s.53 of the HPA to withhold any information in the records responsive to the applicant’s access request. Island Health was ordered to give the applicant access to the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose.

An applicant requested access to their personal information under the control of their former employer, the CARDON Group. The CARDON Group refused to disclose some information to the applicant under ss. 23(4)(c) and 23(4)(d) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner review the CARDON Group’s decision to refuse access and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. During the inquiry, the applicant revealed they already had an unredacted copy of the documents at issue in the inquiry. As a result, the adjudicator had to decide whether it would be appropriate to exercise the discretion available under s. 50(1) of PIPA to cancel the inquiry because the issues to be decided at the inquiry were now moot. The adjudicator determined it was appropriate to cancel the inquiry because the CARDON Group’s decision to refuse access to the information in dispute under ss. 23(4)(c) and 23(4)(d) was moot and there were no factors that warranted proceeding with the inquiry.

The applicants requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to information about a complaint they made to the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry). The Ministry provided the responsive records to the applicants but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The Ministry also disputed the applicants’ claim that the public interest required disclosure under s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and ordered the Ministry to give the applicants access to the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose. The adjudicator also found that s. 25(1) did not require the Ministry to disclose the information in dispute.

An applicant requested access to records about employee exit interviews conducted by the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (Commission). The Commission disclosed some responsive records but withheld information from them and other records in their entirety pursuant to s. 22(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the Commission was required to withhold almost all the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Commission to disclose the information it was not required to withhold to the applicant.

An applicant asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for access to records about him. ICBC disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that ICBC was authorized to withhold some, but not all, of the disputed information under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator also found that ICBC was required to withhold a small amount of third-party personal information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22(1).

An applicant requested a report written by an investigator relating to a workplace investigation from Langara College (College) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The College partially disclosed some information in the report but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 19(1)(a) (threat to anyone else’s safety or mental or physical health) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some of the information in dispute, but that s. 19(1)(a) did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose the information that it is not authorized or required to withhold.

An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a report (Report) about the board of education for School District No. 33 and other related records. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records but withheld information in the Report under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner review the Ministry’s decision and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. The adjudicator determined the Ministry correctly applied s. 22(1) to the information at issue in the Report.

An applicant requested The City of New Westminster (City) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records relating to the end of its former Fire Chief’s employment. The City withheld some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (disclosure harmful to financial or economic interests of public body), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of FIPPA and common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator found the City was authorized to withhold the information under settlement privilege and required to withhold some, but not all, of the information at issue under s. 22. The adjudicator further found the City was not authorized to withhold the information at issue under s. 14. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold.

An applicant requested records from Thompson Rivers University (TRU) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). TRU disclosed the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that TRU was authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under s. 14 and most of the information it withheld under s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that TRU was required to withhold most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered TRU to disclose to the applicant the information it was not authorized or required to withhold.

The Ministry of Health (Ministry) requested the Commissioner exercise their discretion, under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to not conduct an inquiry regarding its decision to refuse an applicant access to requested records. The Ministry argued an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that disclosure could threaten the Provincial Health Officer (PHO)’s safety and mental and physical health in accordance with s. 19(1)(a) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that it was plain and obvious that disclosure could reasonably be expected to threaten the PHO’s safety and mental and physical health. As a result, the adjudicator allowed the Ministry’s s. 56(1) application and the upcoming inquiry was cancelled.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested the Ministry of Health (Ministry) provide access to a report and other records. The Ministry provided the applicant with partial access to the responsive records, but withheld information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences) and 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of FIPPA. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner review the Ministry’s decision and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. At the inquiry, Simon Fraser University was granted approval to participate in the inquiry as an appropriate person. As well, the applicant and the Ministry made submissions about the impact of a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision for the analysis under s. 12(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the court decision did not significantly change the current s. 12(1) analysis. Applying that analysis, the adjudicator found the Ministry had correctly applied ss. 12(1) and 13(1) to withhold some of the redacted information in the responsive records, but ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that it was not required or authorized to withhold under ss. 12(1) and 13(1). As part of the s. 13(1) decision, the adjudicator developed and clarified the analysis under s. 13(2)(j) (field research report) and s. 13(2)(m) (information publicly cited). Lastly, the adjudicator ordered the head of the Ministry to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Ministry’s head had properly exercised their discretion under s. 13(1).

An applicant asked the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for access to records about archaeological sites. The Ministry disclosed some information but withheld the rest under s. 18(a) (conservation of heritage sites) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 3(3) (provincial heritage register) of the Heritage Conservation Act. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to withhold the disputed information under s. 18 of FIPPA and it was not necessary to decide if s. 3(3) of the Heritage Conservation Act also applied.

An applicant requested, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), a copy of an agreement between the City of Vancouver (City) and the Vancouver Canadians baseball team for the use of Nat Bailey Stadium. The City disclosed the agreement in severed form, withholding some information under s. 21(1) of FIPPA (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator noted that the City had disclosed some of the withheld information in a public report in 2012 but, nevertheless, considered all of the information in dispute. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the withheld information and ordered the City to disclose it to the applicant.

The applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (the University) for access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to all communications mentioning him that were sent to or received by a named individual. The University provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the University was authorized to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and required to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the University to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.

An access applicant (the respondent) made a request, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records containing information about himself. The Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafe) requested authorization from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner under s. 43 of FIPPA to disregard the request on the basis that it was frivolous and vexatious, and that responding to it would unreasonably interfere with WorkSafe’s operations because it was repetitious and systematic. The adjudicator found that the access request was vexatious and authorized WorkSafe to disregard it. The adjudicator also found that future access requests were likely to be vexatious and granted some future relief.

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 records from the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport (the Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry disclosed the records but withheld some information under s. 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party) of FIPPA. At the inquiry, the Ministry withdrew its reliance on s. 21(1), disclosed the withheld information to the applicant, and requested that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) cancel the inquiry on the basis that the issues were moot. The applicant submitted that the inquiry should proceed. The adjudicator determined that the matter of the Ministry’s refusal to disclose the information in dispute was moot and no factors warranted continuing the inquiry. The adjudicator cancelled the inquiry.

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.

An applicant requested access to records of communications that mention a website. The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (the Ministry) identified several records, severed information from them under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and disclosed the remainder to the applicant. The applicant requested that the OIPC review the Ministry’s severing decision. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose almost all of the disputed information under s. 22(1) because its disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy. The adjudicator determined that neither ss. 22(1) nor 16(1)(a)(iii) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations) applied to part of one sentence and required the Ministry to disclose that part to the applicant.

An applicant requested access to geospatial information held by the Ministry of Forests (the Ministry). The Ministry refused to disclose this information under s. 21(1) (disclosure harmful to a third party’s business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is not required to refuse disclosure under s. 21(1) and ordered the Ministry to disclose the information to the applicant. Finally, the adjudicator determined that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest disclosure) does not require the Ministry to disclose the Data without delay.

An individual complained that the Town of Gibsons publicly disclosed their personal information in violation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator confirmed that s. 33(2)(f) of FIPPA authorized the disclosure.

An applicant requested the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) provide access to records relating to his criminal prosecution. The Ministry provided responsive records withholding some information under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined the Ministry properly applied s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) to withhold the information at issue. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was required to withhold all the information in dispute, which was provided for the adjudicator’s review, under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator also found that the Ministry was not authorized under s. 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) to withhold the disputed information. Given the Ministry did not provide some records to which it applied ss. 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion) and/or 22(1), the adjudicator ordered the Ministry, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce these records for the purpose of adjudicating these issues on the merits.

An applicant requested access to her personal information from Solus Trust Company Limited (Solus) under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). In response, Solus provided access to some information but refused to disclose other information under several PIPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the applicant is not entitled to access some information under PIPA because it is not her personal information. The adjudicator also found that Solus was authorized to refuse to disclose most of the information that it withheld under s. 23(3)(a) (solicitor-client privilege) and was required to refuse to disclose some of the information that it withheld under ss. 23(4)(c) (personal information about another individual) and 23(4)(d) (identity of an individual who provided personal information about another individual). Given the finding that s. 23(3)(a) does not apply to some information, the adjudicator ordered Solus to produce that information so the adjudicator could decide if ss. 23(4)(c) and/or (d) applied. The adjudicator also found that s. 23(5) required Solus to disclose some portions of the information in dispute to the applicant.

An applicant requested Thompson Rivers University (TRU) provide him with access to a specific TRU employee’s communications that mention the applicant. TRU disclosed responsive records but withheld some information under one or more Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed TRU’s decision to refuse access to all of the information that it withheld under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator confirmed TRU’s decision to refuse access to some of the information it withheld under s. 13 (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator further found that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) applied to some of the personal information in dispute. The adjudicator ordered TRU to disclose the information to the applicant that it was not required or authorized to withhold.

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 Town of Qualicum Beach (Town) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for communications between the Town and a local airline. The Town withheld some information in dispute under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some information in dispute but that s. 21(1) did not apply to any information in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Town to disclose to the applicant the information it was not authorized or required to withhold.

The applicant requested a draft report from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry provided the draft report but withheld some information under various exceptions under Part 2 of FIPPA, including s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). In Order F24-37, the adjudicator found that s. 14 did not apply to the information in dispute and ordered the Ministry to produce that information for the purpose of deciding whether ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) and 17(1) (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body) also applied. In this order, the adjudicator finds that s. 12(1) applies to the information in dispute and that the Ministry is required to withhold it under that exception. Consequently, there was no need to address whether s. 17(1) also applied.

An applicant requested a variety of records from the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board), operating as WorkSafeBC. In response, the Board provided the applicant with responsive records but withheld some information from those records pursuant to ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the Board had properly applied s. 13(1) to withhold most, but not all, of the information in dispute. The adjudicator also found that the Board was required to withhold some of the information in dispute pursuant to s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Board to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold.

The Northern Health Authority (NHA) requested authorization under ss. 43(a) and (b) to disregard part of the respondent’s request. The adjudicator granted relief under s. 43(b) on the grounds that he had already received the records or they are accessible by him from another source. The adjudicator found it was not necessary to consider whether that part of the request was frivolous or vexatious for the purposes of s. 43(a). The adjudicator also declined to authorize relief for any future requests.

The applicant requested a draft report from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry provided the draft report but withheld some information under various exceptions under Part 2 of FIPPA, including s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege). The adjudicator found that s. 14 did not apply to the information the Ministry withheld under that provision and ordered the Ministry to produce it for the purpose of deciding whether other exceptions apply. With respect to the other information at issue, the adjudicator found that ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 17(1) (harm to a public body’s financial or economic interests) and s. 21(1)(harm to a third party’s business interests) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute under those provisions. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) did not apply to the remaining information in dispute under that provision. With respect to the other exceptions at issue, the adjudicator found that s. 19(1)(a)(threat to safety or mental or physical health) applied to the names and some signatures of BC Hydro employees working on Site C, but that s. 22(1)(unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) did not apply to the remaining signatures of BC Hydro employees.

An applicant requested the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Ministry) provide records about the applicant’s past employment with the Ministry. The Ministry disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (security of property or system) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to withhold all the information withheld under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some of the information withheld under ss. 13(1), 15(1)(l) or 22(1), and ordered the Ministry to disclose that information.

An applicant made an access request to WorkSafeBC for data about workplace injuries under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). WorkSafeBC provided portions of three datasets to the applicant and refused access to the remainder of the information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy). The key issue was whether the information in dispute was “personal information” within the meaning of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that most, but not all, of the information was personal information, and that WorkSafeBC was required to withhold all the information that was personal information under s. 22(1). The adjudicator required WorkSafeBC to give the applicant access to the information that was not personal information.

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.

An applicant made an access request and a privacy complaint to the Board of Education of School District No. 43 (School District) regarding a single email communication between the School District and an independent school. Initially, the School District withheld the email under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and disagreed with the applicant’s privacy complaint. However, during the inquiry, the School District determined that s. 14 did not apply and it disclosed the email to the applicant. It also acknowledged that it disclosed the applicant’s personal information without authority under FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the issues in dispute were moot and there were no factors that warranted continuing the inquiry. Therefore, the adjudicator cancelled the inquiry.

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 requested records relating to the seismic upgrade of a school in School District 61. The Board of Education of School District 61 (the Board) responded by providing access to records but withholding some information under s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and s. 17(1) (harm to the financial interests of the public body). The adjudicator found that the Board correctly applied s. 12(3)(b). The adjudicator also found that s. 17(1) applied to some of the information but did not apply to the floor plans of the school and ordered the Board to disclose them.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia requested that the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56(1) to refuse to conduct four matters under review by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner on the basis that the applicant is abusing FIPPA’s processes. The adjudicator found that the applicant was abusing FIPPA’s processes and ordered that the upcoming matters be canceled.

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.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) an applicant asked the Resort Municipality of Whistler (Municipality) for access to certain information about a rezoning assessment related to a specific piece of land. The Municipality provided the applicant with responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests), and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. During the inquiry, the parties resolved their dispute about the information withheld under ss. 21(1) and 22(1) and the only issue left was whether the Municipality was authorized to withhold the information in dispute under s. 14. The adjudicator determined the Municipality was authorized to withhold all the information in dispute under s. 14.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested records related to the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (District)’s handling of a drinking water advisory and a wildfire. The District assessed the applicant a fee for processing each of the two access requests. The applicant requested that the District waive the estimated fees under s. 75(5)(b) of FIPPA because the records relate to a matter of public interest. The District declined to waive the assessed fees. The adjudicator found that the records related to a matter of public interest and that the applicant should be excused from paying the estimated fees.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested Thompson Rivers University (University) provide access to records related to allegations the applicant made against several University employees. The University provided the applicant with responsive records but withheld information or entire pages of records under one or more FIPPA exceptions to access. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) review the University’s decision. The OIPC adjudicator determined the University was required or authorized to withhold some of the information at issue under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. However, the adjudicator required the University to provide the applicant with access to information that the University had incorrectly withheld under ss. 14, 13(1), 22(1) or s. 12(3)(b) (local body confidences).

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.

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

A journalist requested a copy of an evaluation report on the bids for a contract regarding the Site C Dam project. The British Columbia Power and Hydro Authority (BC Hydro) disclosed the report but withheld information under s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of the public body), s. 19(1) (harm to individual health or safety), s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests), and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 19(1), s. 21(1) and s. 22(1) applied to some of the information, but that s. 17(1) did not apply to any information. The adjudicator ordered BC Hydro to disclose some of the information.

An applicant requested his personal information from Guild Yule LLP (GY), a law firm, under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). GY had represented some of the defendants in a lawsuit in which the applicant was the plaintiff. GY disclosed some records to the applicant but withheld some of the records containing the applicant’s personal information under s. 23(3)(a) of PIPA (solicitor-client privilege). The adjudicator found that GY was authorized to withhold the records because solicitor-client privilege applied to them.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) for records related to Island Health’s decision to delay publishing certain test results on the MyHealth patient portal. Island Health withheld the information in dispute under ss. 13(1), 15(1)(l), and 22(1) of FIPPA, as well as s. 51 of the Evidence Act. The adjudicator confirmed Island Health’s decision under s. 15(1)(l) of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act in full, and its decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) of FIPPA in part. The adjudicator ordered Island Health to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) of FIPPA.

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 information from Green Apple Art Center (Green Apple) under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). Green Apple did not respond. During the inquiry, Green Apple provided some of the requested information to the applicant. The Adjudicator found that Green Apple failed to meet its obligations under s. 29(1) (time limit for response) and ordered Green Apple to respond to the request within three weeks, in compliance with the requirements of ss. 28 and 30 of PIPA.

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 University of British Columbia (University) made an application, under s. 43(c)(ii) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) for authority to disregard a number of outstanding access requests and any future access requests made by, or on behalf, of an access applicant. The access applicant later withdrew all their access requests that the University sought authority to disregard under s. 43(c)(ii). However, the University requested the OIPC proceed with its s. 43 application to determine its request for future relief. The adjudicator determined it would be inappropriate to grant the University’s request for future relief under s. 43. The University was not authorized to disregard any future access requests made by, or on behalf of, the applicant.

An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records relating to professional practice complaints he filed against multiple lawyers. The Law Society of British Columbia (Law Society) withheld information from the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed the Law Society’s decision to withhold information from the responsive records under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy).

The applicant made an access request to the Municipality of North Cowichan (Municipality) for records relating to a society, an organization and certain named individuals. The Municipality provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of exceptions in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the Municipality was authorized to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and required to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy).

The applicant requested that Thompson Rivers University (TRU) provide him with access to its communications with an investigator that mention the applicant. TRU disclosed records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to most of the information in dispute and required TRU to refuse to disclose that information. The adjudicator ordered TRU to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to the applicant.

The applicant, an instructor at Douglas College, requested that the college provide her with all records related to her employment. Douglas College disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third’s party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14 in full, and its decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose the information it was not authorised or required to withhold under ss. 13(1) and 22(1), and to provide a summary of certain information supplied in confidence about the applicant under s. 22(5).

An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to all records pertaining to himself in the City of Burnaby’s (City) correspondence with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency. The City provided the applicant with partial access to the records but withheld some information under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator determined that some of the withheld records were not responsive to the applicant’s request. The adjudicator further determined that the City was authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), and most of the information withheld under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose almost all of the information withheld under s. 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) that could not be withheld under other exceptions. The adjudicator ordered the City to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for access to records containing information about himself and his communications with various public bodies. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) disclosed some information to the applicant but withheld other information under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege). The Ministry also disputed the applicant's claim that the public interest required disclosure under s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose access to all of the information withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator also found that s. 25(1) did not require the Ministry to disclose the information in dispute.

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 to records relating to a development project held by the City of Vancouver (City). The City withheld some information in the responsive records, citing multiple exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found the City was authorized to refuse to disclose all the information it withheld.

The City of Richmond requested from the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) records relating to the appointment of two individuals as Commissioners of BCUC. BCUC disclosed some records but withheld the remainder under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The City of Richmond raised the application of s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25(1) did not apply. He also found that s. 22(1) applied to most but not all of the information in dispute. The adjudicator ordered BCUC to disclose some of the information.

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).

The City of Delta (City) applied under ss. 43(a) and 43(c)(ii) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for authorization to disregard seven access requests it says were made by the respondent. The City also requested prospective relief, including authorization to disregard all future requests made by the respondent for a period of two years. The adjudicator declined to consider one of the access requests because it was overdue at the time of the City’s s. 43 application (an access request that a public body does not respond to by the deadlines set out in FIPPA is considered an overdue request). The adjudicator also declined to consider two other access requests because the City had already responded to them in accordance with s. 8 of FIPPA. The adjudicator authorized the City to disregard the other four requests under s. 43(a) as well as future requests, over and above one open request at a time, for a period of one year.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Township of Langley (Township) for access to records containing information about noise complaints related to the applicant's land and a neighbourhood the applicant specified. The Township withheld information in the records under several exceptions to disclosure in Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Township was not authorized to withhold the information in dispute under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 15(1)(d) (confidential source of law enforcement information). The adjudicator also determined the Township was authorized to withhold some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the Township to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.

The City of Vancouver issued a request for proposals to develop and operate affordable housing projects on several city-owned sites. An applicant requested copies of all of the proposals that were submitted. The City decided to disclose an entire copy of one proposal that it had received from a third party. That third party asked the OIPC to review the City’s decision on the basis some of the information in their proposal must be withheld under s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator required the City to refuse to disclose all of the information in dispute because disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the business interests of the third party.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for all emails a former vice-president at TRU sent and received relating to a workplace complaint involving the applicant. TRU withheld most of the responsive records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that TRU was authorized to withhold the records it withheld under s. 14. As a result, the adjudicator did not need to consider ss. 13 and 22.

An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for records related to a submission he made to the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. TRU disclosed some records and withheld what it called “draft letters” under s. 13(1) of FIPPA (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator found that most of the withheld information did not fall under s. 13(1) and ordered TRU to disclose it. The adjudicator also found that some information (editorial suggestions for changes to a draft letter) did fall under s. 13(1) and confirmed TRU’s decision to withhold this information.

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.

An individual complained that an organization contravened the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) when it disclosed information about her to the lawyer of the parties opposing her in a legal dispute. The adjudicator found that the organization disclosed personal information but PIPA did not permit the disclosure. More specifically, the adjudicator found that PIPA did not deem the complainant to have consented to the disclosure of her personal information or permit the disclosure without her consent.

Both an applicant and a third party requested a review of the decision of the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) to disclose in part, in response to a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, an agreement for the provision of information technology services by the third party to PHSA. The third party asserted that PHSA must withhold additional information under s. 21(1) (financial harm to a third party). The applicant asserted that the PHSA must disclose all of the information. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to any information and ordered PHSA to disclose the record in its entirety.

The applicant requested access to records held by the Office of the Premier (“Office”) of its correspondence with Pacheedaht First Nation (Pacheedaht) representatives regarding forestry in Pacheedaht lands. The Office responded and withheld some information pursuant to s. 16(1)(a)(iii) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found the Ministry was not authorized to refuse access under s. 16(1)(a)(iii).

The applicant requested information from Epic Rides under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). Epic Rides did not respond, but stated during the inquiry that it did not have the applicant’s personal information under its control. The adjudicator found that Epic Rides failed to meet its obligations under s. 29 and ordered Epic Rides to respond to the request within 30 days, in compliance with the requirements of ss. 28 and 30 of PIPA.

The applicant requested records related to TRU’s internal discussion and action concerning a document the applicant provided to TRU at TRU’s request. TRU released some records to the applicant but withheld other records either in part or in their entirety under ss. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy). However, only ss. 13(1) and 14 were in issue during the inquiry. The adjudicator confirmed that TRU is authorized to withhold all the information in dispute under s. 14 and it was not necessary to consider the application of s. 13(1).

An instructor at Thompson Rivers University (TRU) requested a copy of a report into the investigation of a workplace complaint against him. TRU withheld the entire report under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some of the information but ordered TRU to disclose the remainder.

The applicant requested her personal information from DLA Piper (Canada) LLP (DLA Piper) under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The adjudicator found that ss. 23(4)(c) (disclosure would reveal personal information about another individual) and/or 23(4)(d) (disclosure would reveal the identity of an individual who has provided personal information about another individual) applied to the applicant’s personal information in two email chains. However, the adjudicator found that DLA Piper was able to provide the applicant with some of her personal information under s. 23(5) and ordered DLA Piper to disclose that information to the applicant.

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 requested access to a variety of records containing information pertaining to a workplace investigation. The public body refused access to some information in the responsive records under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed that the public body correctly applied s. 13 (advice or recommendations) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) to some of the information it withheld under those sections. The adjudicator determined that the public body must disclose the balance of the information at issue.

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 individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (Ministry) for records relating to Cultus Lake Park. The Ministry provided access to some records but withheld some information under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 16 (harm to intergovernmental relations), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The Ministry later decided to withdraw its reliance on ss. 12(1) and 13. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information under ss. 14, 16 and 22.

The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) applied for authorization to disregard one outstanding access request and certain future access requests under ss. 43(a) and 43(c)(ii) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found the outstanding request was vexatious under s. 43(a). The adjudicator also found the outstanding request was systematic and responding to it would unreasonably interfere with the Ministry’s operations under s. 43(c)(ii). The adjudicator authorized the Ministry to disregard the outstanding request and future requests, over and above one request at a time, for a period of five years.

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 requested meeting minutes and communications containing information about the process and history of how a parking lot development in the City of Port Coquitlam (the City) became a condominium development. The City disclosed responsive records but withheld information under ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 17(1) (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to withhold some information under ss. 12(3)(b) and 13(1), but not under ss. 14 and 17(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to give the applicant access to the information the City was not authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14 and 17(1).

An applicant requested their own personal information from the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). PHSA disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information under several exceptions under Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a property or system) applied to the information that PHSA withheld under those exceptions. The adjudicator also required PHSA to withhold some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered PHSA to disclose the information to which s. 22(1) did not apply.

An applicant requested her personal information from DLA Piper (Canada) LLP (DLA Piper) under the Personal Information Protection Act. In response, DLA Piper identified 22 sets of documents containing references to the applicant but refused to disclose the information under ss. 23(3)(a) (solicitor-client privilege), 23(4)(c) (personal information about another individual) and 23(4)(d) (identity of an individual who has provided personal information about another individual). The adjudicator found that the information in dispute was the applicant’s personal information and that s. 23(3)(a) authorized DLA Piper to refuse access to most of it. The adjudicator ordered DLA Piper to produce the remaining documents for the purpose of determining whether ss. 23(4)(c) and (d) applied to the remaining information in dispute.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Law Society of British Columbia (Law Society) for records about himself and other records related to the Law Society’s enforcement, complaints, investigations, and disciplinary procedures. The Law Society withheld the records and information in dispute under ss. 13(1), 14, 15(1)(l), and 22(1). The adjudicator found that the Law Society was authorized to refuse to disclose the records and information it withheld under ss. 14 and 15(1)(l) and required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that the Law Society is not required or authorized to refuse to disclose some information it withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) and ordered the Law Society to disclose that information to the applicant.

The applicant requested access to a variety of records containing his personal information. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) refused access to some information in the responsive records under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the Ministry correctly applied ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) to some of the information at issue. However, the adjudicator found the Ministry was not authorized to withhold other information in the records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14, 16(1) and 22(1). In some of these records, the Ministry applied both s. 14 and 16(1) to the same information. Given their finding that s. 14 does not apply to that information, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry to produce some of the s. 14 records so the adjudicator could decide if s. 16(1) applied.

Parents of a student with special needs requested copies from the Board of Education of School District 35 (SD35) of records relating to their child’s educational supports, accommodations, educational plans, educational assistance resources, connections program and any other communications between individuals they identified. SD35 disclosed some records but withheld information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a system), and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some of the information but ordered SD35 to disclose the remainder. He found that ss. 15(1)(l) did not apply to any of the information and ordered SD35 to disclose it.

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 records relating to the termination of her employment with Simon Fraser University (SFU). SFU disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in them under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that SFU was authorized to withhold some, but not all, of the disputed information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and it was not required to withhold the disputed information under s. 22(1) (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered SFU to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.

An applicant requested records related to his dealings with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (the College). The College provided the responsive records, but withheld information in them under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 19(1) (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the College was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 14, and required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). However, the adjudicator determined that the College was not authorized to refuse to disclose information under s. 19(1), and not required to refuse to disclose the balance of the information it withheld 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 some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1)(a)(iii) and 16(1)(c) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), 17 (harm to financial interests of a public body), 19 (harm to individual or public safety) and 22(1) (harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The parties resolved the disputes over ss. 17 and 19 during the inquiry. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold the information under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) and 22(1) in full, and its decision to withhold information under s. 14 in part. As a result of the overlap in the Ministry’s application of the provisions, the adjudicator was not required to determine the Ministry’s application of ss. 13(1) or 16(1)(c).

A tenant complained that the organization, FHBW Investments Co. Ltd. (FHBW), owner of the rental building in which she lives, was collecting, using and disclosing her video images in contravention of s. 6 of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The adjudicator agreed and ordered FHBW to disable the video cameras, to stop collecting, using and disclosing her video images and to delete the video images.

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 access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records about a workplace conduct investigation involving him. The City of Burnaby (City) provided the applicant with partial access to the records, but withheld some information under several exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and all of the information it withheld under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to withhold some of the information under s. 22(1) (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the City to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose.

An individual complained that her employer violated the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) when it kept a copy of her applications for short-term disability benefits and subsequently submitted them as evidence in a hearing before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT). The adjudicator found that the complainant did not give consent for the employer to keep a copy of the short-term disability applications and that PIPA did not authorize the employer to collect the applications without consent. However, the adjudicator found that the complainant was deemed to have consented to the collection of her personal information only for the purpose of sending the short-term disability applications to the benefits provider. The adjudicator found that the employer did not retain the complainant’s personal information in compliance with PIPA.

An applicant made a request to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records about his complaint of a conflict of interest. TRU provided the responsive records, but refused to disclose some information in them under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold some of the disputed information under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that TRU was required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).

An applicant requested copies of records relating to the quality of supply chains and procurement from the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA). PSHA disclosed records but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations). The adjudicator found that PHSA had correctly applied s. 13(1) to the information. The adjudicator confirmed the decision of PHSA to withhold the information at issue under s. 13(1).

A third party requested a review of the decision of the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) to disclose, in response to a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a record containing information about services that the third party was providing to FHA. The third party asserted that FHA must withhold the record under s. 21(1) (financial harm to a third party). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered FHA to disclose the record.

An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a report about the board of education for School District No. 33. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the report, but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry correctly applied s. 22(1) to some of the information withheld in the report. However, the adjudicator found the Ministry was not required to withhold other information under s. 22(1) and ordered the Ministry to give the applicant access to that information.

An applicant made two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Burnaby (City) for records relating to the end of the former Fire Chief’s employment with the City. The City withheld some information under common law settlement privilege and some under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the City could withhold the information under settlement privilege and some but not all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose some of the information it sought to withhold under s. 22(1).

An applicant made a request to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) seeking access to records relating to himself. The applicant submitted to the College that it had a duty to disclose these records to him because disclosure would be in the public interest under s. 25 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the College was not required to disclose the records to the applicant under s. 25.

The Ministry of Attorney General, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health (Ministries) submitted that an individual was abusing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and requested the commissioner grant certain remedies. The adjudicator found that the individual was abusing FIPPA’s review and inquiry processes and cancelled 10 files that were at inquiry and 12 files that were at investigation and mediation. The adjudicator declined, however, to make the orders the Ministries requested regarding future matters that did not yet exist.

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.

The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Education and Child Care (Ministry) related to the Ministry’s policies regarding third party requests for information and his court claim against the Ministry. The Ministry withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information under s. 14 in full, and under s. 13(1) in part, and ordered the Ministry to disclose some information withheld under s. 13(1) to the applicant.

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.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested access to information in a child protection file held by the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). The Ministry withheld some information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. It also withheld other information under ss. 77(1) (information that would reveal the identity of a reporter) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during an assessment or investigation) of the Child, Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was required to withhold some information under s. 22 of FIPPA and s. 77(1) of the CFCSA and that it was authorized to withhold some information under s. 77(2)(b) of the CFCSA. However, the adjudicator found those sections did not apply to other information and ordered the Ministry to disclose that information to the applicant.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested Simon Fraser University (University) provide access to a variety of records, including communications between him and other University employees. The applicant was a former instructor with the University. The University withheld information in the responsive records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the University was authorized or required to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 13(1) and 22(1). For the information it was not authorized or required to withhold, the University was required to provide the applicant with access to this information. Lastly, the adjudicator found the University was required under s. 22(5) to provide the applicant with a summary of personal information supplied in confidence about him in a particular record.

An applicant requested copies of all current contracts for laundry services between K-Bro Linen Systems (K-Bro) and the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). FHA responded to the request by withholding some information under s. 21(1) (harm to the financial interests of a third party). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered FHA to disclose the information.

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 complainants complained that a daycare was contravening the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) by collecting their images by means of video surveillance. The adjudicator found that the evidence did not establish that the daycare was collecting the complainants’ images. It was, therefore, not necessary to consider whether the daycare was complying with PIPA’s requirements for the collection of personal information.

An applicant asked the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (Ministry) for access to records relating to an application to amend a specific environmental assessment certificate, including records of consultations with First Nations regarding the certificate. The Ministry provided access to some records but refused to disclose some information in the records under ss. 13 (policy advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (security of a communications system), 16 (intergovernmental relations), 18 (harm to the conservation of heritage sites) and 22 (personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to refuse access under ss. 14, 15(1)(l) and 16, the Ministry was required to withhold access under s. 22, and it was not necessary to decide if ss. 13(1) and 18 also applied.

An applicant requested records from the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). BCSC disclosed some records in full and others in severed form, applying ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations),15(1)(d) (disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source of law enforcement information, 21(1) (harm to third-party business interest) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) to the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) and 15(1)(d) applied to some information and ordered BCSC to withhold this information. The adjudicator found that that ss. 21(1) and 22(1) did not apply to any of the information and ordered BCSC to disclose this information.

The applicant requested a project status report about the Site C Clean Energy Project. BC Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) disclosed the responsive record but withheld some information 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 found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information in dispute but ordered BC Hydro to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).

A resident and shareholder of a company-owned apartment building complained that the company was contravening s. 6 of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) by inappropriately collecting and using her personal information that it obtained through its video surveillance system. The adjudicator concluded the company was not authorized under PIPA to collect the personal information of the complainant through its video surveillance system. The adjudicator required the company to stop collecting the personal information of the complainant through its video surveillance system.

A journalist made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to TransLink for access to records about Surrey light rail transit. TransLink withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) applied to a small amount of information in dispute and ordered TransLink to disclose the information it was not authorized to withhold under s. 17(1).

The City of New Westminster (City) made an application, under s. 43(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), for authority to disregard an applicant’s access requests on the basis the requests are frivolous or vexatious. It also requested other relief regarding any future access requests made by, or on behalf of, the applicant. The adjudicator found the access requests at issue were vexatious and the City was authorized to disregard them under s. 43(a). However, the City was not authorized to disregard any future access requests made by, or on behalf of, the applicant. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant would continue to use FIPPA for an improper purpose.

The City of Prince Rupert (City) asked the Commissioner for permission to disregard the respondent’s access request under ss. 43(a) (frivolous or vexatious), 43(b) (record already disclosed or accessible from another source) and 43(c) (responding to the access request unreasonably interferes with the public body’s operations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City did not meet its burden of proving that ss. 43(a), (b) or (c) applies.

An applicant requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose some information on the basis of common law settlement privilege and s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) did not apply to the information considered under that exception.

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.

An applicant made a request to the University of British Columbia (UBC) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records about the 5G partnership between UBC and a third party. The third party requested a review of UBC’s decision that s. 21(1) (harm to business intertest of a third party) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act does not apply to withhold information in the records. The adjudicator confirmed UBC’s decision that it was not required to refuse access to any part of the records under s. 21(1). The adjudicator ordered UBC to disclose them to the access applicant.

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.

An individual complained the College of Massage Therapists of British Columbia (College) contravened the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by improperly disclosing his personal information. The individual is a registrant of the College who was investigated for his conduct towards a patient. The College argued the disclosure was authorized under various subsections of ss. 33.(1) or 33.2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the College did not contravene FIPPA since the disclosure was authorized under an enactment of British Columbia in accordance with s. 33.1(1)(c) of FIPPA. Given that finding, the adjudicator did not find it necessary to consider the College’s application of the other FIPPA provisions at issue.

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 member of the Health Sciences Association (applicant) made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Interior Health Authority (IHA) for a copy of a contract and related records between the IHA and service providers for the provision of services to the Kelowna Urgent and Primary Care Centre (KUPCC). IHA responded to the request by withholding information under ss. 16 (harm to intergovernmental relations) and 17 (harm to the financial or economic interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that neither s. 16(1) nor s. 17(1) applied and ordered IHA disclose the information at issue.

A realtor complained that the BC Financial Services Authority (Authority) disclosed his personal information in a way that was not permitted by s. 33(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the Authority was authorized to disclose the personal information at issue under s. 33(2)(q) of FIPPA because the disclosure was made for the purpose of discipline of persons regulated by governing bodies of professions or occupations.

The Complainant said that two law firms (organizations) violated his privacy rights under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) in collecting, using and disclosing his personal information. The organizations argued that issue estoppel applies, barring the Complainant from proceeding with his complaints, as a provincial court judge dealt with the same issue in an earlier proceeding and dismissed the Complainant’s claims against the organizations and lawyers involved. The adjudicator found that issue estoppel applies and that the Complainant is thus barred from proceeding with his PIPA complaints.

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.

An applicant requested from the Board of Education of School District 61 (SD61) copies of statistical reports relating to the number of times students with special needs were removed from classes or excluded from school trips. SD61 released the statistical information for each school listed in the reports but withheld the names of the schools under s. 22(1). It withheld this information on the grounds that disclosure of the numerical values could identify individual students. The adjudicator found that SD61 had correctly applied s. 22(1).

An applicant requested the Ministry of Health (Ministry) provide access to information relating to hearing panel members of an audit established under the Medicare Protection Act. In response, the Ministry refused access under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to most of the information in dispute and confirmed the Ministry’s s. 22 decision and ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under s. 22(1).

The applicant, the Vancouver Dispensary Society (Society), complained about the City of Vancouver’s (City) denial to waive their fee for an access request. The City estimated the fee would be $28,432.50 to process the request. The adjudicator found the Society had not established a fee waiver was warranted under s.75(5)(a) (fair to excuse payment) or s.75(5)(b) (public interest) and confirmed the fee.

A local of a union (applicant) requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to daily reports generated by an employee of E Comm Emergency Communications for British Columbia Inc. (E-Comm). The reports contain historical data about emergency and non-emergency call statistics and the operational performance of E Comm’s call-taking and dispatch services. E Comm refused access to the records withholding information under s. 17(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined E-Comm was not authorized to refuse access to the information at issue since its disclosure could not reasonably be expected to harm E Comm’s financial or economic interests in accordance with s. 17(1). The adjudicator ordered E Comm to disclose the withheld information to the applicant.

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.

Two applicants requested access to their personal information under the control of their former Jehovah’s Witness congregations. The congregations refused to disclose the requested information. They believe the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) does not apply and PIPA is unconstitutional, specifically the provisions that give the applicants and the commissioner access to personal information and records under the control of religious organizations. The adjudicator found that PIPA applies. While the adjudicator found that the impugned measures in PIPA infringe s. 2(a) (freedom of religion), the infringement is justifiable under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). The congregations did not establish that PIPA infringes s. 2(b) (freedom of expression), s. 2(d) (freedom of association) or s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) of the Charter. The adjudicator ordered the congregations, under s. 38(1)(b) of PIPA, to provide a copy of the records for the adjudicator to review and decide what access to the records, if any, the applicants should be given.

An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to two claim files. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) disclosed most of the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body) and 3(5)(a) (record available for purchase by the public) of FIPPA. ICBC later abandoned reliance on s. 17(1). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1), 22(1) and 3(5)(a) apply to most of the withheld information and ordered ICBC to withhold this information. The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose the information to which she found ss. 13(1), 22(1) and 3(5)(a) did not apply.

A property owner (complainant) submitted a request to the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) for records relating to alterations to district property abutting his property. The SCRD responded with a fee estimate of $490. After the complainant paid the required deposit of $245, the SCRD issued a revised fee estimate of $2790. The complainant protested that the revised fee was not in compliance with s. 75 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the revised fee estimate was not authorized by s. 75 of FIPPA. The adjudicator reduced the fee to the amount of the original estimate and excused the complainant from paying the remaining $245. The adjudicator also ordered the SCRD to complete the processing of the request.

An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records relating to hearing panels established under the Medicare Protection Act. In response, the Ministry withheld a 28-page PowerPoint presentation in its entirety under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s s. 14 decision.

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 records relating to his employee group benefits plan. BCIT withheld information in the responsive records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party). The adjudicator confirmed BCIT’s decision under s. 14. Regarding ss. 13(1) and 21(1), the adjudicator confirmed BCIT’s decisions in part and ordered it to disclose some of the information in dispute.

An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) copies of records relating to her applications to professional programs and the hiring of teachers. UBC released some of the information but withheld the rest under s. 13 (advice and recommendations) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that UBC had correctly applied s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that UBC had correctly applied s. 22.

An applicant requested the BC Ambulance Service dispatch, incident and after-action records relating to two incidents at a particular Skytrain Station. The Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) disclosed the records but withheld some information under s. 19(1) (disclosure harmful to individual or public safety) and s. 22(1) (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The applicant raised the application of s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure) on the grounds that disclosure was in the public interest. The adjudicator found that PSHA was not required to disclose the records under s. 25(1). The adjudicator found that ss 19(1) and 22(1) applied to some of the information at issue and but ordered PSHA to disclose other information.

The City of Richmond (City) made eight requests to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) for records about the Inquiry into the Regulation of Municipal Energy Utilities. BCUC estimated that a $24,000 fee would be required to process the requests. The City paid the fee and then requested a fee waiver under s. 75(5)(a) (fair to excuse payment) and s. 75(5)(b) (public interest). BCUC denied the fee waiver requests. The adjudicator found the City had not established that a fee waiver was warranted and confirmed the fee.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) received an access request from an applicant for records related to a dispute over unpaid vehicle insurance premiums. ICBC provided the applicant with partial access to the responsive records, but withheld information under ss. 13 (advice and recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that ICBC had correctly applied s. 14 to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator also concluded ICBC properly exercised its discretion in applying s. 14 to the records. The adjudicator determined, however, that ICBC was not authorized to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 13(1) and 14 and ordered ICBC to disclose that information to the applicant.

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.

An applicant requested records relating to a bylaw complaint against his property. The Islands Trust (Trust) disclosed records to the applicant but withheld some information under s. 15(1) (harmful to law enforcement) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that the Trust had correctly applied ss. 15(1) and 22(1).

The Weyerhaeuser Company Limited (Weyerhaeuser) applied for authorization under s. 37 of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to disregard an outstanding request for the respondent’s personal information and any future requests. The adjudicator found that Weyerhaeuser had failed to establish that responding to the request would unreasonably interfere in its operations because of the systematic or repetitious nature of the request (s. 37(a)) or that the request was frivolous or vexatious (s. 37(b)). The adjudicator denied the request for relief.

An applicant made two requests for access to records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, one to the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and one to the Ministry of Finance, for records mentioning her name over a specified period of time. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure) did not require the Ministries to disclose the information in dispute. The adjudicator also found that ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a property or system) applied to the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute.

The Ministry of Attorney General applied to disregard one access request and for relief from future access requests under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 43(a) did not apply because although the request at issue was part of a series of systematic requests, the adjudicator was not satisfied that responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the Attorney General’s operations. The adjudicator also found that the request was not frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b).

The BC Liberal Opposition Caucus (applicant) requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to a record called “Expectations – Minister’s Office.” The Office of the Premier (OOP) disclosed the record in severed form, withholding some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that the OOP had not demonstrated that the withheld information was about an identifiable individual. The adjudicator found that, as a result, the information in dispute was not personal information. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) does not, therefore, apply to the withheld information and ordered the OOP to disclose it to the applicant.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Richmond (City) for access to records relating to delays in the construction of a recreational centre. The City withheld the records and information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 17(1) (harm to the 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). The adjudicator determined that the City is authorized under s. 14 to withhold some, but not all, of the records on the basis that solicitor-client privilege applies. The adjudicator ordered the City, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the remaining records to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for the purposes of adjudicating the other exceptions.

An applicant requested copies of any complaints a named third party may have made to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Ministry), Security Programs Division regarding the applicant during a three-year period. The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records, in accordance with s. 8(2). The adjudicator found that the Ministry had correctly applied s. 8(2).

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Finance for the cabinet briefing note and candidate profile and declaration form for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive records, but withheld other information under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the Ministry of Finance was required to withhold the information in dispute under s. 12(1) and that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Ministry of Finance for cabinet briefing notes and candidate profile and declaration forms for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive records, but withheld other information under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the Ministry of Finance was required to withhold the information in dispute under s. 12(1) and that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for cabinet briefing notes and candidate profile and declaration forms for two named individuals within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive records, but withheld other information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute.

The applicant requested access to a child protection report made to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry). The Ministry withheld information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). It also withheld information under ss. 77(1) (reveal the identity of reporter) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during assessment or investigation) of the Child, Family and Community Services Act (Act). The Ministry applied one or more of these exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was required to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 77(1) of the Act, but that ss. 77(1) and 77(2)(b) did not apply to other information. For that information, the adjudicator determined s. 22(1) of FIPPA did not apply and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the applicant.

An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to a provincial government program that provided eligible first-time home buyers with a down payment loan. The Office of the Premier and the Ministry of Attorney General and the Minister responsible for Housing (collectively the “Public Bodies”) provided partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Public Bodies were authorized to withhold information under s. 14 and they were required to withhold only some of the information at issue under ss. 12(1). Specifically, the Public Bodies were not required to withhold information that the adjudicator determined qualified as background explanations or analysis under s. 12(2)(c).

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Surrey (City) for access to a forensic audit report. The City responded by withholding the responsive records in their entirety under several exceptions to disclosure under FIPPA, including ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the City is authorized under s. 14 to withhold the disputed records on the basis that litigation privilege applies, but not on the basis that solicitor-client/legal advice privilege applies. Given this finding, and since the City did not provide the records to the OIPC, the adjudicator did not find it necessary to consider s. 22(1).

An applicant requested the emails that a certain contracted employee of the BC Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) sent or received over a period of three days. BC Hydro refused to disclose information in the responsive records under s. 15(1)(l) (harm the security of a computer system) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information at issue and ordered BC Hydro to withhold the information. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(l) did not apply to the records and ordered BC Hydro to disclose the remaining information.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Ministry) for any and all records related to a complaint filed against a named business regarding the “BC Security License for CCTV Installation”. The Ministry provided the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some information in the records under ss. 15(1) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator decided that the Ministry is authorized to withhold most of the disputed information under s. 15(1)(d), but must disclose the other information because neither s. 15(1)(d) nor s. 22(1) apply.

An individual complained that the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) used unverified information about him in contravention of s. 28 (accuracy of personal information) and s. 29 (correction of personal information) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to make child custody decisions that affected him. The adjudicator found that the Ministry made every reasonable effort to verify the personal information that it used in accordance with s. 28. The adjudicator made no finding with respect to s. 29 owing to lack of evidence.

An applicant requested a copy of an audit report that Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH) commissioned to examine reporting and billings of contracted service providers under the home support services program. VCH withheld the record in its entirety under ss. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations) and 17(1) (harm to the financial or economic interests of the public body) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The applicant raised the application of s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure) on the grounds that disclosure was in the public interest. The adjudicator found that VCH was not required to disclose the audit report under s. 25. He also found that ss. 17(1) and 13(1) did not apply to the information at issue and ordered VCH to disclose it to the applicant.

The New Westminster Firefighters’ Union, IAFF Local 256, made a request to the City of New Westminster (City) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for access to the dates and amounts on legal bills that a law firm issued to the City during a three-year period for work advising and representing the City’s Fire Department. The City refused access to the responsive records and information under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision that it is authorized under s. 14 to refuse access to the disputed records and information.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for access to records relating to himself held by the Medical Services Plan and the Medical Services Commission. The Ministry released the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some records and information under several exceptions to disclosure under FIPPA. The adjudicator decided that the Ministry is authorized to withhold the information in dispute under s. 14, some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1), and none of the information in dispute under ss. 15(1) and 17(1). The adjudicator also decided that the Ministry is required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1).

The applicant requested records related to St. Augustine School from the City of Vancouver (City) and a waiver of any potential fees the City might charge to respond to the request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The City assessed a fee of $960 to respond to the request and declined to waive the fee. The applicant complained to the OIPC that the City should have waived the fee under s. 75(5)(b) (public interest fee waiver). The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision not to grant a fee wavier under s. 75(5)(b).

An applicant requested a bylaw officer’s body camera footage from the City of Prince Rupert (City). The City refused the applicant’s request because it claimed disclosure of the footage could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of a law enforcement officer or any other person under s. 15(1)(f). The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(f) did not apply and ordered the City to disclose the footage.

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 the record of members of the Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC) who voted in its 2019 council election, together with information showing for whom the members voted. The AIBC denied access to the information under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the AIBC’s decision to refuse access to the information.

An applicant requested bylaw enforcement records related to his neighbour’s property on Salt Spring Island. Islands Trust disclosed some information but refused access to the rest under several Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that Islands Trust was not authorized to refuse access under ss. 15(1)(a), (c) and (l) (harm to law enforcement), but it was required to refuse access to some of the information under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). Islands Trust was ordered to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.

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

In a court-ordered partial reconsideration of Order F19-38, the adjudicator considered further evidence provided by the Ministry of Finance to support its decision to withhold three categories of records under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined the information at issue was protected by solicitor-client privilege and the Ministry of Finance was authorized to withhold that information under s. 14.

A wife and husband requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records containing their personal information and their son’s personal information. The Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry) disclosed some records to the applicants, but withheld some information or the entirety of other records under several exceptions to disclosure under FIPPA and the Child, Family and Community Service Act (Act). The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision which concluded the applicants were not authorized to access their son’s personal information because the applicants did not establish they had the authority to act on behalf of their son in exercising his access rights under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 76 of the Act. The adjudicator also concluded the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some of the information at issue under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of FIPPA and also under ss. 77(1) (reveal the identity of reporter) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during assessment or investigation) of the Act. However, the adjudicator found the Ministry was not authorized to withhold information under s. 15(1)(l) (harm the security of a computer system) of FIPPA. The Ministry was required to disclose any information that it was not authorized or required to withhold.

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.

An applicant requested access to a record related to her maternal grandmother’s incarceration in a juvenile reformatory in the 1940s. The adjudicator confirmed the Museum’s decision that it was not authorized to disclose the record under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The adjudicator found that the doctrine of federal legislative paramountcy applied, so it was not necessary to decide whether the Museum was required to refuse to disclose the record under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of British Columbia (UBC) for access to an investigation report. The report concerns allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment that the applicant made against a former UBC employee. UBC decided to disclose some of the information in the report. The former UBC employee argued that the disputed information should be withheld under s. 22(1) of FIPPA because its disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy. The adjudicator found the disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy and confirmed UBC’s decision that it is not required under s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose the disputed information to the applicant.

A physician requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (the College). The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision to refuse to disclose the information under s. 26.2(1) (confidential information) of the Health Professions Act.

The applicant requested a variety of information related to herself from OccuMed Consulting Inc. (OccuMed). OccuMed provided some records and information in response, but withheld other records, claiming the withheld records were not under OccuMed’s custody and control and, even if they were, solicitor-client privilege authorized OccuMed to withhold them. The adjudicator found that the disputed records are under the control of OccuMed, but solicitor-client privilege applies. Accordingly, OccuMed is authorized to withhold the records under s. 23(3)(a) of PIPA.

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.

An applicant requested a copy of the Vacancy Tax Compliance Policy Manual (manual) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) from the City of Vancouver (City). The City disclosed much of the manual but withheld portions under ss. 15(1)(a) (harm to law enforcement matter), 15(1)(c) (harm to investigative techniques and procedures) and 17(1) (harm to economic interests of a public body) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(c) applied to the information in dispute. It was not necessary to consider ss. 15(1)(a) and 17(1).

An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act from the City of White Rock (White Rock) to an email he sent, as well as other records associated with that email. White Rock disclosed the records, withholding some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) did not apply to a third party’s name and email address because they were contact information. The adjudicator ordered White Rock to disclose this information to the applicant. The adjudicator also found that a reference to a group to which the third party belonged was personal information, both of the third party and another individual, and White Rock must refuse to disclose that information under s. 22(1).

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

The applicant requested that the University of British Columbia provide access to records related to a specific news release. The University withheld information in the responsive records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator decided that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to most of the information in dispute and ordered the University to disclose the rest to the applicant.

An applicant made a request to the City of Vancouver under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the Brenhill land swap transaction. Both the applicant and a third party requested a review of the City’s access decision. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, the City’s decision to refuse access under s. 13 (advice or recommendations) but ordered the City to disclose other information that had been severed under that exception. The adjudicator also confirmed the City’s decision to refuse access under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) but found that s. 21 (harm to third party business interests) did not apply. The adjudicator rejected the applicant’s argument that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) applies.

The BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo) requested that the OIPC decline to conduct an inquiry into PavCo’s decision to refuse an applicant access to certain requested records. The records comprise video footage recorded at a specific time on CCTV cameras at the Vancouver Convention Centre and the Olympic Cauldron. The adjudicator found that it was not plain and obvious that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) applied to the requested records. Therefore, the adjudicator denied PavCo’s request. The OIPC will conduct an inquiry into this matter.

The applicant requested severance agreements between the City of White Rock (City) and certain former City employees. The City identified five agreements as responsive, but withheld them in their entirety on the basis of common law settlement privilege and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to withhold the records on the basis of settlement privilege. Given this, the adjudicator did not consider whether s. 22 applied.

An applicant requested reports about an incident that occurred on the tracks of a Sky Train station. The public body relied on several exceptions in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to refuse access to information in the records. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(l) (harm to communication system) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) applied to some of the disputed information, and ordered the public body to disclose the rest. The applicant claimed all the information should be disclosed under s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure), but the adjudicator found that provision did not apply.

A complainant alleged that the organization failed to comply with its duty under s. 28 of PIPA to assist the complainant and respond to him as accurately and completely as reasonably possible. The adjudicator found that the organization complied, for the most part, with its duty under s. 28. However, it did not comply when it provided some contradictory and erroneous information in response to a part of the access request involving employee personal information. The complainant also complained about two fees the organization assessed. The adjudicator found that one fee was moot because PIPA did not apply to that information. She ordered the other fee be revised and reduced to make it a minimal fee under s. 32(2). The complainant was given a timeline to let the adjudicator know if there is a dispute about whether the revised minimal fee should be further reduced or excused because it is not reasonable under s. 36(2)(c).

The 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.

A father requested his daughter’s psychological therapy session information from a psychologist pursuant to s. 2(2)(a) of the Personal Information Protection Act Regulations and s. 23(1)(a) of the Personal Information Protection Act. The psychologist refused to provide access, determining that the daughter was a mature minor, capable of exercising her own rights under PIPA. The adjudicator confirmed the psychologist’s decision to withhold the information in dispute from the father.

The Ministry of Health and the Medical Services Commission jointly applied for authorization to disregard the respondent’s outstanding access requests and certain future access requests under s. 43(a) and (b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the outstanding requests were repetitious and systematic and responding to them would unreasonably interfere with the public bodies’ operations under s. 43(a). The public bodies were authorized to disregard the outstanding requests and all but one of the respondent’s future access requests at a time for two years from the date of the authorization.

The City of Nanaimo (City) applied for authorization under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to disregard several outstanding access requests made by the respondent as well as certain future access requests. The adjudicator found that the City had not established that responding to the requests would unreasonably interfere with its operations because of the repetitious or systematic nature of the requests (s. 43(a)) or that the requests were frivolous or vexatious (s. 43(b)). Accordingly, the adjudicator concluded that the City was not entitled to relief under s. 43.

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 made a request to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to part of Manulife Financial Corporation’s response to a request for proposals issued by BCIT on behalf of a consortium of post-secondary institutions. BCIT disclosed the responsive record with some information withheld under s. 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that BCIT was required to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information withheld under s. 21(1). The adjudicator also decided that BCIT was not authorized to withhold a small amount of information on the basis that it was “not responsive” to the applicant’s access request.

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.

An applicant requested reports about a fatality that occurred on the tracks of a SkyTrain station. The public body refused access to some information in the records under s. 22 (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant claimed the records should be disclosed under s. 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply and s. 22 applied to some of the disputed information. The public body was ordered to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.

An applicant requested TransLink provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about a security incident aboard one of TransLink’s Seabus ferries. TransLink withheld information under s.22(1) claiming the disclosure of the withheld information would result in an unreasonable invasion of several third parties’ personal privacy. The adjudicator determined that s. 22(1) applied to most of the information at issue and confirmed TransLink’s decision to withhold that information. However, the adjudicator found that TransLink was not required to withhold a small amount of information under s. 22(1) since the adjudicator was satisfied that disclosing this information would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy.

The applicant requested information related to the Brenhill land swap from BC Housing. BC Housing provided responsive records with some information withheld under ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party privacy). A third party disputed BC Housing’s decision about s. 21, asserting that BC Housing must withhold more information under it. The applicant disputed BC Housing’s decision regarding all the exceptions applied and argued that BC Housing should release all the information under s. 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that ss. 13, 14 and 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under those sections. However, the adjudicator was not satisfied that ss. 17, 21 or 25 applied to any of the information in dispute. The adjudicator ordered BC Housing to disclose the information that she found no FIPPA exceptions applied to.

The applicant made three requests to the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) for access to records relating to named individuals allegedly involved in gaming, organized crime or gaming regulation in BC. BCLC refused to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records, citing s. 8(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator concluded that BCLC is authorized under s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of some, but not all, of the requested records.

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 a request to West Coast Realty Ltd., doing business as Sutton Group West Coast Realty (Sutton), for access to part of an email chain. Sutton refused to disclose the requested information on the basis that it is not the applicant’s personal information as required by s. 23(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). Sutton also says that the information is exempt from disclosure under ss. 23(4)(c) and 23(4)(d) of PIPA. The adjudicator determined that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under s. 23(4)(d) and that it was not necessary to also consider s. 23(4)(c).

The applicant requested information related to a workplace investigation from the Vancouver School Board. The School Board provided some information but withheld the rest under both ss. 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 19(1)(a) authorized the School Board to withhold all the information in dispute, so she did not need to decide if s. 22 also applied.

The applicant requested records about her and her employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s ss. 14 and 17 decisions. She did not need to consider s. 21 because s. 17 applied to the same information. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 13 decision, in part, but found that s. 22 did not apply. The University was ordered to disclose the information that the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.

The applicant made a request to the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) for copies of the quarterly reports to the Minister of Finance on implementation of BC’s anti-money laundering strategy. The public body disclosed information in some of the responsive records but withheld other parts under ss. 16 (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), and 22 (disclosure an unreasonable invasion of third party privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that ss. 16 and 17 did not apply to the withheld information, and that s. 22 only applied to a small portion of the withheld information. BCLC was ordered to disclose the remaining information to the applicant.

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 involving a certain Vancouver Coastal Health employee. Vancouver Coastal Health withheld information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant only challenged Vancouver Coastal Health’s decision to withhold information under s. 13(1). The adjudicator determined Vancouver Coastal Health was authorized to withhold some information under s. 13(1), but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since s. 13(1) did not apply.

The applicant requested legal invoices paid by the City of Kelowna in respect of a specific file. Kelowna refused to provide the requested information citing s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied and confirmed Kelowna’s decision to withhold the requested information.

The applicant made a request to the Legal Services Society (LSS) for information about the legal aid billings made by a particular lawyer during a specified period. The LSS refused to disclose the information in dispute under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The applicant argued s. 25(1)(b) (disclosure in public interest) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply and that the LSS was required to refuse to disclose the disputed information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.

The applicant requested records relating to the Brenhill Land Swap from the City of Vancouver (City). The City withheld some of the information from the responsive records, citing ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information in dispute under s. 14 and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute.

The Ministry requested that the adjudicator reconsider her decision about one record that was the subject of Order F20-09. The adjudicator found that her original order did not reflect her manifest intention. As a result, she issued a new order regarding the disputed record.

A journalist requested a copy of proposals submitted to the British Columbia Pavilion Corporation (PavCo) in 2015 to replace artificial turf at BC Place. PavCo ultimately disclosed most of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party financial interests) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) in the proposal of the successful proponent, Centaur Products Inc. (Centaur). The adjudicator found that neither exception applied and ordered PavCo to disclose all of the information in dispute to the journalist.

The applicant made a request to the City of White Rock for access to records relating to negotiations between the City and EPCOR Utilities Inc. The City withheld the disputed records and information under common law settlement privilege and s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), s. 21 (harm to third-party business interests), and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that ss. 14 and 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under those sections. The adjudicator confirmed in part the City’s decision regarding settlement privilege. Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was not required to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 21.

The applicant made a request to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for records relating to the Site C Clean Energy Project. The Ministry disclosed information in some of the responsive records but withheld other parts under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a property or system), 16 (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (disclosure an unreasonable invasion of third party privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information in dispute under s. 15(1)(l), and was required or authorized to refuse to disclose some but not all of the information in dispute under ss. 12(1), 13(1), 16(1) and 17(1). The adjudicator concluded that the Ministry was not required to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 22(1).

A party in proceedings before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal complained that the opposing party’s lawyer disclosed her personal information contrary to s. 6 of the Personal Information Protection Act. The adjudicator found that the Act had not been contravened.

A physician requested access to records related to a complaint and two assessments of his medical practice. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision to refuse the applicant access to records under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The College also refused to disclose records under s. 26.2(1) (confidential information) of the Health Professions Act. The adjudicator found that s. 26.2(1)(a) only applied to some parts of the records and ordered the College to disclose the rest to the applicant. The adjudicator also determined there was some third party personal information the College was required to refuse to disclose under s. 22(1) of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) and the Ministry of Citizens’ Services (MCS) requested authorization to disregard the respondent’s 82 outstanding requests on the grounds that they are repetitive and systematic and would unreasonably interfere with their operations and/or that they are frivolous and vexatious. The adjudicator found that the outstanding requests are vexatious for the purposes of s. 43(b) and authorized MCFD and MCS to disregard them and any future requests for two years, apart from one open request at a time.

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.

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 City of Richmond requested that the commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56 of the Act and choose not to conduct an inquiry into the City’s decision to refuse a journalist access to a report on policing. The adjudicator dismissed the application after finding that it was not plain and obvious that s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies to the report.

The applicant requested access to records relating to investigations into the applicant’s conduct while employed by the provincial government. The public bodies refused to disclose the responsive records and information in dispute under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed that ss. 13 and 14 applied to the information withheld under those sections. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(l) applied to teleconference participant ID numbers, but not to physical meeting locations. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 applied to most of the personal information withheld under that section, but not to a small amount of third-party personal information related to scheduling.

An applicant requested Property Record Cards for 10 properties, including his own, from BC Assessment Authority (BCA). BCA withheld all of the records except those related to the applicant’s own property. BCA said it was withholding the records related to the nine other properties under ss. 3(1)(j) (records available for purchase), 21(2) (information gathered for the purpose of collecting a tax) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), s. 16(3) of the Assessment Act and because some of the information was publicly available without a charge. The adjudicator found that BCA was authorized to withhold some information under s. 21(2). The adjudicator also found that BCA had no authority to withhold the rest of the information on the grounds that s. 3(1)(j) applied or that it was publicly available without a charge and ordered BCA to disclose this information to the applicant. It was not necessary to consider s. 22(1) of FIPPA or s. 16(3) of the Assessment Act.

The applicant requested four records from the City of Vancouver (City) relating to the Brenhill Land Swap. The City said it had custody and control of one of the records but withheld it under s. 21 (harm to third party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The City said that it did not have custody or control of the remaining records. The adjudicator found that s. 21 did not apply and that the City had custody and control of one of the remaining records but not the other two.

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 made two access requests related to a private organization. The applicant made the first of these access requests to both the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Justice, and made the second to the Ministry of Justice alone. The Ministry of Justice (now Ministry of Attorney General) responded to both access requests, withholding the vast majority of the information in the records under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party privacy) of FIPPA. During the inquiry, the applicant clarified that he did not want any third party personal information in the records. The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to much of the information at issue and ordered the Ministry of Attorney General to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to the applicant.

The applicant requested that Metro Vancouver provide records and information related to communications between Metro Vancouver and its external lawyers. Metro Vancouver disclosed some information but withheld the majority of the responsive records in their entirety under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant asserted that s. 25 (public interest disclosure) applied. The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to the withheld information and that s. 25 did not.

The applicant requested access to a record that contains the total legal costs incurred by the Province in ongoing litigation to which the applicant is a party. The Ministry refused to disclose the information on the basis of solicitor-client privilege under s. 14 of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision.

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 access to building permits, inspection reports and other associated records related to her strata development in the Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW). The RMOW disclosed hundreds of pages of responsive records, withholding a small amount of information under s. 21(2) (information related to a tax) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 21(2) applied to one page. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the remaining information and ordered the RMOW to withhold it. The applicant argued that s. 25(1) applied to the information in dispute but the adjudicator found it did not.

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.

The applicant asked the public body for access to certain records regarding Coast Capital Savings Credit Union’s application to become a federal credit union. The public body gave the applicant partial access to the responsive records. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision to refuse the applicant access under s.14 (solicitor client privilege). However, she found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 17(1) (harm to public body’s financial or economic interests), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) only applied to some of the information in dispute and ordered the public body to disclose the remainder of the information to the applicant.

An employee of Unifor National complained that Unifor Local 114 contravened several sections of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) regarding alleged verbal disclosures of his personal information. The adjudicator made the following findings: PIPA applies to unrecorded personal information; the evidence does not establish that one of the verbal statements was made; and the unrecorded personal information in the other two verbal statements is excluded from the scope of PIPA under s. 3(2)(a) (collection, use and disclosure of the personal information was for the personal or domestic purposes of the individual who is collecting, using or disclosing the personal information, and for no other purpose). It was not necessary to consider the remaining issues.

An applicant requested records from the District of Sechelt related to a residential property development. The District withheld information under several FIPPA exceptions. Mediation at the OIPC narrowed the issue for inquiry to s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. During the inquiry, the adjudicator identified some information that may be subject to s. 22 (harm to third party privacy) and received submissions from the parties on this issue. The adjudicator determined that ss. 14 and 22 applied to some of the information and ordered the District to disclose the rest to the applicant.

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

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

The applicants requested records related to the BC Assessment Authority’s 2015 assessment of a property. The matter resulted in Order F17-48. Order F17-48 was reopened to consider whether information which the adjudicator ordered to be disclosed could be used to calculate figures which were ordered to be withheld under s. 21(2) of FIPPA (information gathered for the purpose of determining tax liability). The adjudicator held that some of the information which was ordered to be disclosed in Order F17-48 was required to be withheld because it would reveal information which had been held to be subject to s. 21(2).

An applicant requested records about a third party’s proposed Lions Gate bridge climb. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) decided to disclose some of the information and to withhold other information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). The third party requested a review of the Ministry’s decision, arguing that more of the information should be withheld under s. 21(1). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) applied to all of the information in dispute, as the Ministry and third party had established a reasonable expectation of harm under s. 21(1)(c).

An applicant requested information about himself from his former university. The university withheld information under several Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions. The adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) and found that they applied to some of the disputed information. The adjudicator ordered the university to disclose the balance of the information in dispute.

The Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training (Ministry) requested authorization to disregard the respondent’s 10 outstanding requests. The adjudicator found that, while most of the outstanding requests duplicate previous requests, the Ministry need only respond by referring the respondent to the appropriate previous requests. The adjudicator found, therefore, that these requests did not merit relief under s. 43. The adjudicator found that part of one request was new and also did not meet the criteria for relief under s. 43.

An applicant requested access to records related to a contract between the Ministry of Attorney General’s Liquor Distribution Branch (LDB) and Brains II Canada Inc. and/or Brains II Solutions Inc. (Brains II). The Ministry decided to grant partial access to the records. Brains II made a third-party request for review of the Ministry’s decision to disclose information, saying all of it fell under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator found that some of the information was Brains II’s commercial information and that some of this information was supplied in confidence. The adjudicator found, however, that Brains II had not established that harm under s. 21(1)(c) could reasonably be expected to result from disclosure of the records. The adjudicator confirmed LDB’s decision to disclose the information.

This is an order pursuant to s. 44 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, requiring the Ministry of Attorney General to produce records over which it has claimed s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). This order is made in the context of an ongoing inquiry into the Ministry’s application of ss. 14 and 22 (harm to personal privacy) to certain records.

Three third parties requested the Commissioner reopen Order F16-50. The adjudicator decided that it had been procedurally unfair to not give the third parties notice and an opportunity to make representations at the initial inquiry, so she reopened Order F16-50. The adjudicator then decided that the Ministry was required to refuse to disclose even more information under s. 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act than it had been ordered to refuse to disclose in Order F16-50. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the balance of the records to the applicant.

An applicant requested information related to a recent change to the insurance regime for Uber, Lyft and taxis. The public body withheld some information under sections 12(1) (cabinet confidences); 13 (advice or recommendations); 14 (solicitor client privilege); 17 (harm to public body’s financial or economic interests); and 21 (harm to third party business interests). The adjudicator found that s. 13 applied to some of the withheld information, but not all of it. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(1), 14, 17 and 21 did not apply to the remaining information and, therefore, ordered the public body to disclose that information to the applicant.

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.

The applicant requested accident reports from the City of Vancouver involving youth at municipal recreational facilities. The applicant was only interested in certain information from the accident reports. The adjudicator determined that the information at issue in the inquiry was limited to a few categories of information in the accident reports, specifically age of the injured, the description and cause of injury and the treatment provided. Ultimately, the adjudicator found that the City was not required under s. 22(1) to withhold this information because it did not qualify as “personal information” in this case.

An applicant requested records related to a permit application for an organic composting facility near Lytton BC. The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (Ministry) decided to disclose the records. The permit applicant requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC, arguing that the records are protected by s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the Ministry to disclose the records to the applicant.

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

An applicant requested 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.

A third party requested a review of a public body’s decision to release information to an applicant. The third party submitted that s. 21(1) requires the public body to withhold the disputed information because the release of the information would harm its business interests. The adjudicator determined that s. 21(1) does not require the public body to refuse access to the information.

The applicant requested records relating to the Vancouver Whitecaps lease or licence agreement with the BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo). PavCo refused access to a small amount of information on the basis of ss. 17(1) and 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that neither ss. 17(1) or 21(1) apply to the information in dispute.

The applicant requested access to her personal information contained in records related to her complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC. The applicant’s personal information was intermingled with the personal information of several third parties. The adjudicator held that s. 22 of FIPPA did not apply to some of the information in dispute, specifically information already known to the applicant. However, the College was required to withhold the remainder of the applicant’s personal information because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy under s. 22.

Teck Resources Limited requested that the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 50(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to decline to hold an inquiry into its decision to withhold information in response to the respondent’s request for access to his personal information. The adjudicator granted Teck’s request because it was plain and obvious that an exception of PIPA applied to the withheld information.

An applicant requested access to records related to a permit to build and operate a liquefied natural gas facility. The public body refused access under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant claims the records should be disclosed under s. 25 (disclosure in public interest). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The applicant narrowed his request significantly during the inquiry and the adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the information remaining in dispute and ordered the public body to disclose it to the applicant.

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 all records related to a complaint he made against a member of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia (APEG). APEG refused access on the basis of ss. 14 and 22 of FIPPA and s. 46 of the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, but only s. 14 was at issue in the inquiry. The adjudicator found that APEG was authorized to refuse access to the information in dispute under s. 14.

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 asked the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Attorney General for access to records about the BC government?s decision to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages in grocery stores and the new wholesale pricing model for alcoholic beverages. The Ministries disclosed some information, but withheld other information under s. 12(1) (cabinet confidences) and s. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that ss. 12(1) or 13(1) applied to most of the information in dispute and ordered the Ministries to disclose the remainder of the information to the applicant.

An environmental organization requested access to records regarding British Columbia?s approach to managing species at risk. Two ministries responded and disclosed records but refused to disclose some information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13 (advice and recommendations) and 15(1)(l) (security of property or system). The adjudicator found that s. 13 applied to most of the information, but ss. 12(1) and 15(1)(l) did not apply.

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.

A journalist requested information concerning the government’s legal costs for a high profile lawsuit. The Ministry of Attorney General created a record in response to the request but refused to disclose it under s. 14 of FIPPA on the grounds that it was subject to solicitor client privilege. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision. She also concluded that the Ministry was not required to disclose the information pursuant to s. 25(1)(b) (clearly in the public interest) of FIPPA.

The Law Society of British Columbia applied for authority under s. 43(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to disregard an access request from a former lawyer on the basis the access request was vexatious. It also requested authority to disregard all future access requests of similar breadth from the former lawyer. The adjudicator determined that the current access request was not vexatious and she declined to grant the Law Society of British Columbia relief under s. 43(b) for this request or any future access requests that it may receive from the former lawyer.

The Glenmore-Ellison Improvement District applied for authorization to disregard two of the respondent’s requests for records because they are frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the requests were not frivolous or vexatious and therefore the public body was not authorized to disregard them.

The applicant made a request to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) for all records, emails, documents or any hand written notes or files that named or discussed her. PHSA refused to disclose portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal advice or recommendations under s. 13 of FIPPA or that it would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that ss. 13 and 22 apply to some of the information and that PHSA is required to disclose the remaining information.

An applicant asked for a copy of the purchase of services agreement between the public body and a third party. The agreement related to the public body's commuter rail service. The third party objected to the public body's decision to disclose all of the agreement. The third party submitted that s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) applied to some of the information in the agreement. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the public body to disclose all of the agreement to the applicant.

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

The applicant requested records related to the eDrive electricity rate for producers of liquefied natural gas. The Ministry disclosed records but withheld some information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations) and 14 (legal advice) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant said that s. 25(1) applied (public interest). The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s s. 12(1) decision in part and all of its s. 14 decision but found that ss. 13(1) and 25(1) did not apply. The Ministry was ordered to disclose a small amount of information that could not be withheld under ss. 12(1) or 13(1).

The applicant made a request to Vancouver Coastal Health Authority for presentations relating to a specific project involving a third party. VCH refused to disclose portions of the records on the basis that they would harm the business interests of a third party under s. 21(1). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply.

A professor requested information about a University investigation into how he supervised graduate students. 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.

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

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.

A journalist requested access to the operations and maintenance manual for BC Place Stadium?s retractable roof. PavCo withheld most of the manual under s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property and systems) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(l) applied to the withheld information. It was not necessary to consider s. 21(1).

The complainant requested that the City of Kelowna provide any communications by certain Kelowna officials that mention him by name. Kelowna imposed a fee under s. 75(1) of FIPPA to process the access request. The complainant argued that the public body could not charge him a fee because he was requesting his own personal information within the meaning of s. 75(3). The adjudicator held the complainant's request was for his own personal information and Kelowna was not authorized to charge a fee.

The Ministry applied for authorization under s. 43 to disregard the respondent’s future access requests. The adjudicator held that the respondent’s past requests were repetitive and that one was frivolous. However, the Ministry did not establish that future requests would be frivolous or that responding to the respondent’s access requests would unreasonably interfere with its operations. The Ministry’s application was denied.

An applicant requested records relating to an approval Metro Vancouver Regional District granted to a third party company to discharge emissions. Metro Vancouver released most of the responsive information, but withheld some records on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the third party company’s business interests. The adjudicator determined that Metro Vancouver was required to withhold some of the information in dispute pursuant to s. 21(1).

An Applicant requested a police file from the Victoria Police Department (Public Body) relating to an incident between the Applicant and two named employees of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (BC OIPC). The Public Body provided access to the records, with information withheld citing section 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The Applicant requested a review of the Public Body’s decision. As the records at issue involve personal information of BC OIPC employees, the Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC delegated the matter to an adjudicator from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta.

The applicant requested all of his personal information from ICBC. The applicant requested a review of ICBC’s decision to refuse to disclose information under ss. 13, 14, 15, 17 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed in part ICBC’s decision to refuse access to information under ss. 13, 14, 17 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(d) did not apply. ICBC was ordered to disclose any information to which no FIPPA exceptions applied.

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.

This order is issued concurrently with Order F17-56, which addresses the applicants’ request to the Delta Police Department (DPD) for any records about the applicants. DPD gave the applicants access to the responsive records but refused to disclose some information under several exceptions to disclosure under Part 2 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. During the Order F17-56 inquiry, DPD requested that the Commissioner not delegate the power to examine a subset of the records being withheld under s. 15(1)(a) (harm to law enforcement). The Acting Commissioner determined that s. 49(1.1) (delegation by the Commissioner) applied so he did not delegate the power to examine the subset of records. In this order, the Acting Commissioner confirms DPD’s decision to withhold the subset of records under s. 15(1)(a).

A journalist requested that the City of Vancouver disclose its contract with a company for voting software and voter data storage. The City disclosed the contract except for the physical location of computer servers and their corporate operators under s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system). The adjudicator held that the City was not authorized to withhold the information.

Three First Nations/Bands requested a review of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services (formerly known as the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services) decision to disclose information to the Applicant related to the sale of two provincially owned properties. The First Nations/Bands argued that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm their business interests. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision that s. 21 did not apply to the information and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the Applicant.

Two First Nations/Bands requested a review of a decision made by the Ministry of Citizens’ Services (formerly known as the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services) to disclose information related to the sale and purchase of provincially owned land. The First Nations/Bands argued disclosure of the information would harm their business interests within the meaning of s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met and ordered the Ministry to disclose the disputed information to the applicant.

An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records related to the 2015 assessment of the Oakridge Centre shopping mall. The BC Assessment Authority (BCA) disclosed 17 pages of records, withholding much of the information under s. 21(2) (information gathered for the purpose of determining tax liability) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that BCA was required to withhold most of the severed information under s. 21(2) but could disclose the rest.

An applicant requested access to her personal information. The University of British Columbia disclosed over 800 pages of records, withholding some information under ss. 13(1) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information. The adjudicator ordered UBC to disclose the information to which s. 22(1) did not apply.

An applicant requested copies of her employment records. Approximately five months later, the organization still had not provided the applicant with the records. The adjudicator found that the organization has not fulfilled its duties under ss. 28 and 29 of Personal Information Protection Act and ordered it to provide the response by November 17, 2017.

An applicant requested that the Ministry of Finance disclose records relating to his employment. The Ministry disclosed most of the responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information withheld pursuant to ss. 13 and 14, and required to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 22.

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.

An applicant requested that Capilano University disclose records about a funding initiative for graduates of its film studies program. The University released some records but withheld other records and information pursuant to ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator held that the University was not authorized to withhold any information under s. 17, but was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information it withheld under s. 14 and most of the information under ss. 13 and 22. The adjudicator ordered the University to provide a small amount of information to the applicant.

A union requested lease documents for all space leased by British Columbia Assessment Authority (BCA). BCA refused to disclose some information in the lease documents under s. 21(1) of FIPPA (harm to third party business interests). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered BCA to disclose the disputed information.

Two individuals complained that an organization improperly collected, used and disclosed their personal information. The organization had induced each individual to have online communication with a fictitious woman over the age of 18, subsequently conveyed that this decoy was under the age of 16, and arranged a meeting to confront each man for attempting to lure a minor. The organization video-recorded the encounter and disseminated the video on social media. The Acting Commissioner found that the organization collected, used and disclosed the complainants’ personal information contrary to the Personal Information Protection Act because it had not obtained their consent and had no other authority to collect, use or disclose their personal information. He ordered the organization to stop collecting, using and disclosing the complainants’ personal information, to destroy all of their personal information in its custody or under its control, and to ask others who disseminated the information to remove and destroy it as well.

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

The applicant requested 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

The applicant requested disclosure of records related to a licensing investigation following an accident at a day care. The public body provided the majority of the records, withholding some information under s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator found the Health Authority was required to withhold most of the information on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy pursuant to s. 22(1) of FIPPA. A small amount of information was either not personal information or the Health Authority was not required to withhold it pursuant to s. 22.

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

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

The Provincial Health Services Authority retained a law firm to conduct a workplace investigation. The applicant requested a copy of the report the investigating lawyer produced. The public body withheld two responsive reports pursuant to ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant argued ss. 14 and 22 did not apply, and that disclosure of the reports was in the public interest pursuant to s. 25. The adjudicator determined that the reports were privileged and the public body was authorized to withhold them under s. 14 and further held that section 25 was of no application in this case. Given the adjudicator’s finding that the public body was authorized to withhold the records under s. 14, she declined to consider the application of s. 22.

An applicant requested records from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia about a multi-car accident involving 18 vehicles. The applicant was the driver of one of the vehicles. ICBC withheld information in responsive records under ss. 13, 14, 17 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13 or 22 applied to most of the withheld information, and that s. 14 applied to a few records. The adjudicator determined that s. 17 did not apply. ICBC was ordered to disclose the remaining information to the applicant.

An applicant requested a 911 transcript relating to a bicycle accident in which she was seriously injured. BC Emergency Health Services disclosed most of the transcript, but it withheld information that revealed the identity of the 911 caller under s. 22 of FIPPA (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The 911 caller was the other cyclist involved in the accident. After stating that s. 22 ordinarily applies to the identities of 911 callers, the adjudicator determined that s. 22 does not apply in this case. The adjudicator ordered BCEHS to disclose the withheld information to the applicant.

A journalist requested access to an invoice for legal services that was submitted by a law firm to the City of Penticton. Penticton refused to disclose the requested information under s. 14 of FIPPA on the grounds that it was subject to solicitor client privilege. The adjudicator confirmed Penticton’s decision.

The applicant asked the City of Richmond for records relating to complaints made about him. The City withheld some of the requested information on the basis that it revealed policy advice or recommendations under s. 13, that it was privileged under s. 14, that disclosure of the information would be harmful to law enforcement under s. 15, that disclosure would be harmful to individual or public safety under s. 19, and that disclosure would be harmful to the personal privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse access to the information at issue under ss. 13 and 14, but not under s. 15 or 19. He found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to some but not all of the information at issue under s. 22.

The applicant requested records related to Ministry permits for work on a road on the Sunshine Coast. The Ministry disclosed the requested records to the applicant, but it withheld some information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision.

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.

A journalist requested the contract between the NHL and PavCo for hosting the 2014 Heritage Classic hockey game. PavCo disclosed most of the contract, withholding some information under s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator found that neither section applied and ordered PavCo to disclose the information in dispute to the journalist.

The applicant requested copies of his text messages the BC Securities Commission obtained during the course of its investigation of the applicant and others. The adjudicator confirmed BC Securities Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant access to the records under s. 15(1)(a) on the basis that disclosure would harm a law enforcement matter.

The adjudicator found that the public body was authorized to refuse access to the identity of a complainant, as its disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential source of law enforcement information under s. 15(1)(d).

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.

The applicant, a former service provider for Community Living BC (“CLBC”), asked for records in which he was identified, many of which related to concerns about clients’ quality of care. CLBC withheld some of the requested information as policy advice or recommendations under s. 13(1), and because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that CLBC was authorized or required to withhold the information on these grounds.

Two journalists requested access to the final agreement between the City of Vancouver and Aquilini Investment Group regarding the sale of units in the Olympic Village. The City proposed to disclose most of the agreements. The third parties, Aquilini and Millennium Group, objected to disclosure of much of the information on the grounds that it could reasonably be expected to harm their business interests under s. 21(1) or third-party personal privacy under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to a small amount of information and that s. 21(1) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the agreement, except for some personal information of tenants of the Village.

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.

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 a memo about a medical residency program for international medical graduates. The Ministry of Health disclosed some information, but it withheld other information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 14 (legal advice) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13 applies to some of the withheld information, and that s. 14 applies to the balance of the withheld information.

The applicant requested access to Ministry records that mention a specific British Columbia Supreme Court decision involving the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. The Ministry refused the applicant access to the requested information on the basis that it was protected by solicitor client privilege, so s. 14 of FIPPA applies. The adjudicator found that the information met the criteria for legal advice privilege and the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose it under s. 14 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.

The applicant requested a research data access report and associated background information. The Ministry disclosed some information but it withheld other information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant argued that this information should be disclosed under s. 25(1) (public interest). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was not required to disclose the requested information under s. 25(1). Further, the adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that disclosure of the personal information in dispute would not be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22(1), so the Ministry was ordered to provide this information to the applicant.

The applicant requested records related to meetings between provincial ministries, a resort and a First Nation regarding a specific property. The Ministry withheld some information under ss. 12(1), 13(1) and 19(1)(a). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applies to some information. The adjudicator also found that s. 19(1)(a) does not apply to some information and ordered the Ministry to disclose this information to the applicant. It was not necessary to consider s. 12(1).

A journalist requested access to reports on the number of attendees at Whitecaps and BC Lions games. PavCo denied access to the responsive record under s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body) and s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests). The adjudicator found that neither exception applied and ordered PavCo to disclose the record to the journalist.

The applicant requested access to his BC Corrections file. The Ministry disclosed a number of records and withheld other records and information under ss. 15(1)(f), (g) and (l), 16(1)(b) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that ss. 15(1)(g), 16(1)(b) and 22(1) applied to some information and records. The adjudicator also found that ss. 15(1)(f) and (l) and s. 22(1) did not apply to other information and records and ordered the Ministry to disclose them.

Keemax Asia requested a third party review of the Ministry of International Trade and Ministry Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism’s decision to disclose two contracts and six contract amendments with the Government of British Columbia. Keemax argued disclosure of the two contracts and six contract amendments would harm its business interests within the meaning of s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision that s. 21(1) did not apply to the information it had decided to disclose because the information in the records was not supplied within the meaning of s. 21(1)(b) of FIPPA.

The applicant requested records about product listing agreements between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the Ministry. The Ministry disclosed some information but withheld other information under s. 17(1) of FIPPA (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body or the government of British Columbia). The third party, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, submitted that the information should also be withheld under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests). The adjudicator found that the Ministry is authorized to withhold the information in dispute under s. 17(1), with the exception of the names and job titles of the Ministry employees and the identity of the Third Party and its employees. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) does not apply to that information either, so it must be disclosed to the applicant.

A journalist requested records related to the use of free vouchers on BCLC’s PlayNow.com gaming site. BCLC withheld some of the information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence) and s. 17(1) (harm to BCLC’s financial interests). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to much of the information and that s. 17(1) applied to other information. The adjudicator also found that s. 17(1) did not apply to some information and ordered BCLC to disclose this information.

An applicant requested records related to the costs of a 2012 investigation into a health data breach in the Ministry of Health. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was not required under s. 25(1)(b) of FIPPA (public interest) to disclose the total amounts paid to lawyers who provided legal services in relation to the investigation. Further, the adjudicator found that the Ministry was not authorized to refuse to disclose the information under s. 14 of FIPPA (solicitor client privilege).

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.

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

An applicant requested records related to a building developer’s withdrawal from a partnership with the City of New Westminster. The City disclosed some records, but withheld some information under several exceptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined the City is authorized to withhold meeting minutes and a report to council and attachments under s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), but not information from an agenda. The adjudicator also found that s. 13 (advice or recommendations) authorizes the City to withhold a draft communications brief. Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City is not authorized to withhold parts of the agenda and the meeting minutes on the basis that they were non-responsive to the applicant’s request.

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 all correspondence and minutes naming himself and certain City Of Vancouver employees relating to the applicant’s role with various Community Centre Associations. The City disclosed some information but withheld some emails under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator authorized the City to withhold all of the information withheld under s. 14 and most of the information withheld under s. 13. The adjudicator also determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose almost all of the information withheld under s. 22.

The applicant requested correspondence about himself from the City of Williams Lake. The City disclosed most of the responsive information except for information that identified a third party who had written a series of emails about the applicant to the City. The information was withheld on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The City was required to continue withhold the identifying information under s. 22.

The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training related to the provincial government’s decision to fund the Times of India Film Awards. The Ministry withheld some information in the responsive records, including information from a contract, citing Cabinet confidences under s. 12 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold some information under s. 12 because disclosing it would reveal the substance of Treasury Board deliberations, but that the remaining information must be disclosed because s. 12 does not apply.

The applicant requested records the B.C. Pavilion Corporation (“PavCo”) used to process an earlier request for records. PavCo withheld some of the requested information on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body (s. 17 of FIPPA), as well as the business interests of a third party (s. 21). PavCo also withheld the name and position title of a PavCo employee on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy (s. 22). Further, PavCo refused to disclose some information in the records solely on the basis that the information was non-responsive to the request. The adjudicator determined that PavCo is not authorized or required to refuse to disclose any information under ss. 17, 21 or 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator also required PavCo to process the information it was withholding as non-responsive because it is only authorized or required to withhold this information under Division 2, Part 2 of FIPPA.

An applicant requested records relating to City of Kelowna tendering processes for a construction project at a park. The City disclosed most of the information in the responsive records, but it withheld some information on the basis that it is exempt from disclosure under s. 13 (advice or recommendations), s. 17 (disclosure harmful to the financial or economic interests of the City) and s. 21 (disclosure harmful to the business interests of a third party) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information withheld under s. 13 and that it is required to refuse to disclose some of the information withheld under s. 21. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the remaining information to the applicant.

The mother of a School District 57 (Prince George) student requested video camera footage that was taken during a 10 day period her son spent in a modified classroom setting. The School District responded by permitting the applicant to access the footage at its office, but it decided that it was required to refuse to disclose to the applicant a copy of the footage containing the personal information of the classroom teacher and youth care worker captured on the video because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of their personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 applies to the information about the classroom teacher and youth care worker. Section 22 did not apply to a RCMP officer whose image was also captured in the footage. The adjudicator determined that the applicant, medical professionals and legal professionals were entitled to access to the footage. However, the School District was not required to provide a copy of the footage to the applicant.

Two third parties requested a review of a BC Ferry Services Inc. decision to disclose portions of records that are responsive to a request under FIPPA. The records relate to a BC Ferries arrangement with the third parties about a pilot project for two cable ferry routes. The third parties argued that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the corporate third party’s business interests. The adjudicator confirmed BC Ferries’ decision that s. 21 did not apply to the information it had decided to disclose, and ordered BC Ferries to disclose it to the person who had requested the records.

An applicant requested records relating to a Workers’ Compensation Board complaint filed by his adult daughter. WorkSafeBC disclosed some information to the applicant, but it withheld other information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that WorkSafeBC is required or authorized to refuse to disclose the withheld information under ss. 13 and 22 of FIPPA.

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.

The applicant requested records detailing payments made by the City of Surrey to the London Speakers Bureau. The City withheld payment amounts from a chart, invoices, and a schedule of fees and expenses on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to the business interests of a third party (s. 21). The Adjudicator determined that s. 21(1) did not apply to any of the information in dispute, and the City must disclose it. The Adjudicator further determined that s. 22(1) did not require the City to withhold any of the information in dispute.

A journalist requested a copy of the City Manager’s Agenda for a period spanning approximately three months. The City of Vancouver disclosed most of the Agenda, but withheld small excerpts on the basis that disclosure would harm the security of a communications system (s. 15(1)(l)) or be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties (s. 22 of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that apart from telephone numbers that comprised contact information, the withheld information in the Agenda was appropriately withheld by the City.

The applicant requested his personal information from records contained in a Delta Police Department (“DPD”) motor vehicle collision investigation (“collision investigation”) file and two DPD files about police officer behaviour related to the collision investigation. The DPD withheld some of the collision investigation records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA. The DPD withheld almost all of the behaviour records on the basis they were outside the scope of FIPPA due to ss. 66.1 and/or 182 of the Police Act. The adjudicator determined that a withheld record arising from the applicant’s complaint about DPD officer behaviour was outside the scope of FIPPA because the record arose out of and was created after an internal discipline complaint under Part 9 of the Police Act. For the records related to a complaint about the applicant, some information on one page is outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 182 of the Police Act. The DPD must process under FIPPA the remaining information withheld as outside the scope of FIPPA because it does not disclose or relate to a Police Act complaint or investigation or was created before a Police Act investigation began. The adjudicator also determined that s. 22 did not apply to the applicant’s personal information withheld under that provision.

An applicant requested BC Emergency Health Services (“BCEHS”) provide her with a transcript, including the name and phone number of an individual who called 911 from the scene of an accident in which the applicant was seriously injured. BCEHS provided the applicant with a transcript of the call, but withheld personal information including the caller’s name and phone number because it believed disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy (s. 22 of FIPPA). The applicant was not satisfied with BCEHS’ response and asked the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. BCEHS requested the Commissioner exercise her discretion under s. 56 of FIPPA to not hold an inquiry. The adjudicator found that it was not plain and obvious that disclosure of the third party’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of their personal privacy under s. 22; therefore, BCEHS’s request that an inquiry not be held was denied.

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.

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.