The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Health (Ministry) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The applicant complained to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that the Ministry did not respond to the access request. The adjudicator found that the Ministry did not respond by the timeline set out in s. 7 of FIPPA and ordered it to respond to the applicant.
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant made an access request to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). Despite two time extensions, the applicant submits the Ministry did not respond to their access request. The applicant asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the Ministry’s failure to respond to their access requests in accordance with the legislated response times under FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry did not perform its duty under ss. 6(1) and 7 to respond without delay in accordance with the required statutory deadlines. The Ministry was ordered to provide a response to the applicant’s access request by a set date.
An applicant made a request to the Interior Health Authority (Authority) for access to a variety of records. The applicant claimed the Authority did not respond to the access request without delay as required under ss. 6 and 7 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the Authority’s alleged failure to respond to their access request in accordance with the legislated response times. The adjudicator found that the Authority did not perform its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 to respond without delay, in accordance with the required statutory deadlines. The adjudicator ordered the Authority to provide a compliant response to the applicant’s access request by a set date.
An applicant made a request to the City of Vancouver (City) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the total amount of compensation paid to a former City employee during a specified date range. The City withheld the information on the basis that releasing it would reveal information that is protected by common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator found that settlement privilege applied to the information in dispute and that there was no overriding public interest that justified finding an exception to the privilege.
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested records from the University of British Columbia (UBC). Approximately six months later, UBC still had not provided the applicant with a response. The applicant asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review UBC’s failure to respond to his access request as required under FIPPA. The adjudicator found that UBC had failed to fulfil its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA and ordered it to respond to the applicant by a set date.
A complainant made 13 requests for video images of himself on transit vehicles from TransLink. TransLink responded denying access citing s. 6(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the recorded images stored on TransLink’s CCTV system were records as defined in Schedule 1 of FIPPA. He found that TransLink had incorrectly applied s. 6(2) and failed to meet its obligations under s. 6(1). He also found that FIPPA required TransLink to make every reasonable effort to retain copies of records responsive to requests until the complainant had exhausted all avenues of review. The adjudicator confirmed that TransLink’s responses to the complainant did not contravene ss. 8(1) or 9.
An individual requested from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry) any records regarding himself and his business. The Ministry responded to the request by providing the complainant with some records. The complainant complained that the Ministry had not conducted an adequate search for records in accordance with s. 6(1). The adjudicator found that Ministry had not conducted an adequate search in its first response to the request but subsequently provided an adequate response after a further search for records.
An individual requested from the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) any records that it had created for the Provincial Health Officer relating to the indoor setting type of Covid-19 transmission. PHSA responded to the request by providing the applicant with one record. The applicant complained that PHSA had not conducted an adequate search for records in accordance with s. 6(1). The adjudicator found that PHSA had conducted an adequate search.
An applicant requested a specific report and related appraisals from the City of Vancouver (City). The City withheld the report under ss. 12(3)(b) (local body confidences) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant also complained that the City did not conduct an adequate search for records as part of its duty to assist under s. 6(1). The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to the report but that the City did not fulfil its duty to assist under s. 6(1).
The applicant requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). In response, the Ministry provided 8,936 pages of responsive records, withholding some information under a number of different exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under ss. 13(1), and 14 and some of the information under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) and 18(a). The Ministry was required to withhold some information in dispute under ss. 12(1) and 22(1). However, the Ministry was required to disclose some of the information it withheld under ss. 12(1), 16(1)(a)(iii), 18(a) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 16(1)(c) did not apply to the information considered under that section. The Ministry also withheld some information under common law settlement privilege, but did not provide the records in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to produce the records for the purpose of adjudicating settlement privilege. The applicant also complained that the Ministry did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for text messages and deleted emails.
An applicant requested records from the City of Vancouver (City) under the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) related to three “rezoning
enquiries” covering the period from April 2016 to January 2019. The City disclosed records, severing information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 15(1)(l)
(harm to security of property or system), 17(1) (harm to economic interests of public
body) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The applicant disputed
that severing and also complained that the City interpreted his request too narrowly and
did not conduct an adequate search for the responsive records. The adjudicator found
that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some information. The adjudicator also found that
s. 13(1) did not apply to other information and ordered the City to disclose it. It was not
necessary to consider s. 13(1) for some information or to consider ss. 17(1) and 15(1)(l) at all. Finally, the adjudicator found that the City complied with its duty under s. 6(1) to
interpret the request and conduct an adequate search.
Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH) failed to respond to an applicant’s access requests within the timelines required by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The director found that VCH had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified deadline.
Thompson Rivers University failed to respond to an applicant’s access requests within the timelines required by Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that Thompson Rivers University had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access requests by a specified deadline.
Thompson Rivers University failed to respond to an applicant’s access request within the timelines required by Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that Thompson Rivers University had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified deadline.
Three applicants made a total of five requests to the District of Summerland (the District) for access to a variety of records. The applicants claimed the District did not respond to their access requests without delay as required under ss. 6 and 7 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the District’s alleged failure to respond to their access requests in accordance with the legislated response times. The adjudicator determined the District did not perform its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 to respond without delay, in accordance with the required statutory deadlines. The District was ordered to provide a response to the applicants’ five access requests by certain set dates.
An applicant requested access to records in her human resources file from Vancouver Coastal Health, including records related to her work performance. Vancouver Coastal Health provided some records, but it refused to disclose some information under ss. 13 (advice and recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Vancouver Coastal Health also argued that certain records were outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(d) or were not responsive to the applicant’s access request. The adjudicator determined that Vancouver Coastal Health was required to withhold some information under s. 22(1), but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13 and 22(1) did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 3(1)(d) did not apply to certain records; however, the adjudicator determined that those records were not responsive to the applicant’s access request. As a result, the adjudicator concluded Vancouver Coastal Health had performed its duty under s. 6(1) to respond to the access request openly, accurately and completely.
A society complained to the OIPC that the City of Vancouver (City) did not meet its duty to assist under s. 6(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the City did not respond openly, accurately and completely to the access request and that the City did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the City to conduct another search. In addition, the adjudicator found that certain records were responsive records in the custody and control of the City under s. 4 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) related to a highway improvement project. The Ministry extended the time for responding to the applicant’s request by 20 days, citing its authority to do so under s. 10 of FIPPA. The applicant made a complaint about this time extension to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The adjudicator decided that s. 10(1)(c) authorized the Ministry to extend the time limit for responding to the applicant’s access request by 20 days in the circumstances. Accordingly, the adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s time limit extension.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) to records related to her and her employment for a specified time period. The Ministry withheld information in the records on the basis ss. 13(1), 15(1)(g) and/or s. 22(1) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply to the records since the information did not qualify as advice or recommendations, but the Ministry was authorized to withhold some information under s. 15(1)(g) as it was related to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The adjudicator also determined that disclosing some of the information in dispute would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy and the Ministry was required to withhold it under s. 22(1). Lastly, the adjudicator found the Ministry did not fulfill its obligations under s. 22(5) to provide the applicant with a summary of personal information supplied in confidence about the applicant in a particular record and ordered it to do so.
A journalist requested copies of an employee’s emails for a 12-hour period in April 2017. The Office of the Premier disclosed three pages of records and said it was not obliged under s. 6(1) (duty to assist an applicant) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to search the employee’s Recover Deleted Items folder for any other responsive records. The adjudicator found that the Office of the Premier should have searched this folder in the first instance and that, therefore, it had not complied with its duty under s. 6(1). At the time of the inquiry, the requested emails were no longer in the employee’s Recover Deleted Items folder because the system had automatically deleted them from that folder and saved them to a backup server. The adjudicator further found that, in view of the complexity, effort and cost involved, the Office of the Premier is not obliged to restore the emails from the backup in order to respond to the journalist’s access request.
The applicant made a request for records to the Ministry. Approximately seven months later, the Ministry still had not provided the applicant with a response. The Ministry was found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA and was ordered to provide the response by June 24, 2016.
The applicant requested witness statements, interview summaries and
transcripts from the Vancouver Police Department (“VPD”) under FIPPA. The VPD
withheld all of the records. The adjudicator found that the VPD was authorized to refuse
access, on the basis that the records revealed information relating to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion under s. 15(1)(g) of FIPPA.
In Order F14-27 it was held that VIHA could not sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that those portions were ‘outside the scope’ of the applicant’s request. A reconsideration was sought and this order decides that issue. FIPPA does not authorize a public body to sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that they are outside the scope of an applicant’s request. VIHA is ordered to consider the applicant’s request as it relates to those portions and disclose them with the exception of any information to which exceptions to disclosure set out in Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA apply.
The applicant requested records related to a pulp mill. Approximately eight months later, the Ministry still had not provided the applicant with a response. The Ministry was found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of FIPPA and was ordered to provide the response by June 24, 2013.
The applicant requested records related to the use of amplified sound in parks for 17 events. After a delay of several weeks, the Board responded by issuing a fee estimate of $510 for searching for the records, plus photocopying and delivery charges. The applicant requested a fee waiver to which the Board did not respond. The Board failed to comply with its duty to respond on time to the request for records and the request for a fee waiver. The fee is excused and the Board is ordered to respond to the request.
The applicant requested a variety of records dating back five years. The Law Society issued fee estimates totalling just over $117,000 for responding to the requests. The applicant complained to this Office about the amounts of the fee estimates and about the Law Society’s “delay” in responding. Mediation led to the consolidation of the requests and a revised fee estimate of $11,000. The applicant paid the estimated fee and the Law Society disclosed records in phases over ten months. The final processing costs were about $27,000. The applicant remained dissatisfied with the amount of the fee and with the pace of disclosure and these matters proceeded to inquiry. The applicant was found to be a “commercial applicant”. The Law Society was found to have included certain charges which were not allowable under FIPPA or its Regulation and was ordered to re-calculate the fee. The revised fee was reduced by 20% because, among other things, the Law Society did not take steps earlier to expedite processing of the request.
The third-party casino operators requested further consideration of one aspect of the s. 22 guidelines contained in Order F08-03. Further submissions are permitted on that issue. In the meantime, the Ministry must disclose the s. 86 reports, as ordered in Order F08-03, with the exception of the information required to be withheld according to the guidelines in Order F08-03 and the names of casino employees acting in a professional or employment capacity, the disclosure of which remains unresolved pending further consideration of s. 22 arising from Order F08-03.
The University of Victoria Environmental Law Clinic, on behalf of a group of eight environmental organizations, brought a complaint against three ministries alleging that there was a system-wide pattern of acting to frustrate environmental groups seeking records under the Freedom of Information and Protection Act (“FIPPA”). The groups alleged that there were routine delays in responding to access requests, excessive censoring of records, excessive and unreasonable fees and frequent and unjustified denials of fee waivers. Any one of these allegations, if proven, would be a violation of the s. 6 FIPPA duty to assist applicants. A preliminary investigation determined that while the complaint against the Ministry of Forests was not substantiated, there was some basis for the allegation of systemic problems with requests made to the Ministry of Environment. The parties met and developed a mutually acceptable action plan to resolve the complainants concerns.
Senior Adjudicator's ruling on applicant's request to expand the scope of an inquiry at the inquiry stage.
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld and severed others under ss. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22. Ministry required to withhold information under s. 12(1) and authorized to withhold information under s. 13(1) and s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information that it withheld under s. 17 and the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Ministry also ordered to conduct another search for responsive records.
The applicant requested a copy of the report evaluating a research proposal that he submitted for funding through Forestry Innovation Investment. The Ministry provided the applicant with the requested record, which included comments made by the individuals who had reviewed the proposal, but severed the names of the reviewers under s. 22 of FIPPA. The Ministry also later claimed that s. 17 applied and authorized it to sever the names of the reviewers. The statutory presumption under s. 22(3) does not apply in this case. However, there are relevant factors under s. 22(2) that weigh against disclosure of the reviewers’ names and s. 22(1) does apply. Since the Ministry is required by s. 22(1) to sever the names of the reviewers, s. 17 need not be considered.
Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56.
The Ministry, which conceded that it had not responded in time to the applicant`s access to information request, is ordered to respond by a specific date.
The Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its destination casino project. The BC Lottery Corporation disclosed some records and withheld and severed others, mainly under ss. 14, 17(1) and 21(1). It also argued that records and information fell outside the scope of the request by virtue of their date or subject matter. Section 14 found to apply but not ss. 17(1) and 21(1). Other records and information found not to be within the scope of the request.
Applicant sought records relating to an Employment Standards Tribunal matter in which it was involved. Ministry is authorized to withhold information under s. 14, no waiver of privilege having occurred. Because its response to the applicant’s request was outside the s. 7 time limit, the Ministry failed to discharge its s. 6(1) duty to assist the applicant. Consistent with past decisions, no order is necessary in that respect.
The applicant requested access to records relating to a public report on offshore oil and gas exploration prepared for the Minister of Energy and Mines by a panel of three scientific experts. For records in the possession of the Ministry, s. 12(1) applied to a small amount of information, ss. 13(1) and 16(1) applied to some other information and s. 25(1) did not apply. Some information in these records was also incorrectly withheld as not responsive to request but may be withheld under ss. 13(1) and 16(1). Records in the possession of panel members or the panel secretariat are under the control of the Ministry and subject to an access request under the Act.
Applicant requested records related to a property. Ministry responded nine months later. Ministry found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7. Ministry ordered under s. 58(3)(c) to refund fees applicant paid
Applicant requested records related to a property. Ministry responded nine months later. Ministry found not to have fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7. Ministry ordered under s. 58(3)(c) to refund fees applicant paid
Applicant requested records related to his interactions with a number of named doctors at the PHSA. The PHSA withheld some information under ss. 14 and 22. Applicant objected to decision to withhold information and also questioned the completeness of the PHSA’s response. The PHSA applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases s. 22. The PHSA is ordered to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22. The PHSA did not show that it complied with s. 6(1) in its response and is ordered to do so.
The applicant requested records related to interactions between the PHSA and CWHC and the BC Health Care Risk Management Society. The PHSA had no responsive records and fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in conducting a search for responsive records.
The applicant requested records identifying legal counsel in a particular matter. The PHSA said no records exist. The PHSA complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records and accounting for the non-existence of such records.
The Ministry took 10 months to respond, and then only partially, to the applicant’s request for access to what the Ministry describes as a “file box full of records”. The Ministry failed to comply with its s. 6(1) duty to make every reasonable effort to respond to the request without delay and is ordered to respond completely.
The public body took 10 months to respond to the applicant’s request for access to records. The public body failed to comply with its s. 6(1) duty to make every reasonable effort to respond to the request without delay.
The Ministry took 10 months to respond, and did so only partially, to the applicant’s request for access to records. The Ministry failed to comply with its s. 6 duty to make every reasonable effort to respond to the request without delay and is ordered to respond completely.
The applicant requested records relating to the review by two experts of an appraisal conducted by the applicant. The City conducted an adequate search for records. It does not have control over records in the custody of the two experts. The City did not fail in its duty to assist under s. 6 as a result of not requesting that the two experts provide a copy of their records for release to the applicant.
Applicant requested records related to himself. PHSA disclosed large number of records and withheld others under ss. 12(3), 13(1), 14 and 22. Applicant disputed decision to withhold information and also complained about delay in PHSA’s response and records search. PHSA found to have applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases also ss. 13(1) and 22. PHSA found not to have complied with its duties under s. 6(1) and ordered to search again.
Applicant requested records related to an investigation. The PHSA provided some responsive records and said it could not locate any others. The PHSA is found to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
The applicant made a request for records related to the Core Services Review of the BC Ambulance Service. The Ministry denied access under ss. 12(1), 13, and 17. Prior to the inquiry, the Ministry released some records, fulfilling its duties under s. 4(2). The Ministry carried out its duties under s. 6. Section 25 does not apply. The Ministry applied s. 12(1) appropriately.
The applicant requested access to records concerning the public body’s response to a complaint relating to the protection of a stream. The public body released records but refused to provide information that would reveal the identity of a third-party complainant. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the disputed information.
The applicant made an access request to the Ministry for records pertaining to
a child custody matter involving her daughter, now an adult. The Ministry released some records
but withheld records contained in the family advocate’s file. Its search for records was adequate.
The Ministry is not authorized to withhold information under s. 14, but s. 22 requires the Ministry
to withhold the same information.
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry provided records to the
applicant but severed some information and withheld other records. Section 22 requires the
Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal information. Ministry found to have applied
s. 22 properly to the severed and withheld records and to have complied with s. 6(1) duty in
searching for records.
Applicant requested records related to her academic appeal. UBC provided records,
withholding other records and information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13(1), 14 and 22. UBC found to have
applied ss. 3(1)(b), and 14 properly and, with one exception, s. 22 as well. UBC ordered to
disclose some personal information related to applicant. Section 13(1) found not to apply in all
cases and UBC ordered to disclose draft letters.
Canadian Pacific Railway requested records relating to its Arbutus railway corridor
lands. The City of Vancouver failed to comply with s. 6(1) by responding to the access request
outside the legislated time frame, without seeking an extension of time under s. 10(1). Although
the City also initially failed to comply with s. 6(1) by inadequately searching for the requested
records and incompletely responding to the access request, this was rectified by subsequent
searches and disclosure to the
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry severed some information.
Applicant requested review of response, saying certain records missing. Ministry found to
have complied with s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and to have applied ss. 13(1) and 22
properly to some information.
Applicant requested records relating to a complaint she made to the College about
a dentist. The College properly withheld the personal information of third parties withheld under
s. 22. The College performed its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search for records
responsive to the request
Through her legal counsel, the applicant made a request to the public body for
records regarding a complaint she had made respecting mental health services she received from
the public body. The public body’s limited severing of personal information from a consultant’s
report that had been prepared in response to the complaint is upheld under s. 22. The public body
also discharged its duty to the applicant to conduct an adequate search for records.
The applicant sought access to records relating to property assessments conducted by
the BCAA under the Assessment Act. Section 25(1)(b) does not require the BCAA to disclose
them and s. 14 authorizes the BCAA to refuse to disclose the records. The BCAA failed to
discharge its s. 6(1) duty to respond without delay, but its ultimate response means no remedy is
available respecting its late reply. Since the BCAA has not established that its response to the
applicant is complete, it must perform another search for records.
The applicant in this case is the daughter of a woman whose attempt to revisit
a mediated settlement of her previous access request to SFU was dealt with in Order 01-16. In
Order 01-16, it was held that SFU need not process the woman’s new access request. The evidence
establishes that the daughter’s access request, made 10 days after Order 01-16 was issued, was
made on her mother’s behalf, as an attempt to circumvent Order 01-16. This is an abuse of process
and will not be allowed. The principle of res judicata also applies. SFU’s decision on the merits
of the daughter’s access request, as an arm’s-length applicant, is upheld.
The applicant made a request to the Ministry for a copy of records pertaining to two investigations related to him. The Ministry’s search for records was adequate and it met its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search.
The Ministry extended the time for responding to the HEU’s access request by
30 days, but did not seek permission for a further extension. The Ministry eventually provided a partial response, of some 534 pages, roughly six months after receiving the request. The Ministry says it still needs more time to consult another public body about some 139 pages of the remaining 336 pages of records. It asks to be given until January 29, 2003 to respond. Having
failed to comply with its duty under s. 6(1) of the Act to respond completely within the required time, the Ministry is ordered to respond before November 30, 2002.
The applicant made two requests to the WCB for a copy of records pertaining to him. The WCB’s search for records was adequate and it met its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search.
Applicant requested copies of all of his personal information from his employer, a youth correctional facility, and the Ministry’s regional, personnel and financial services offices. Ministry initially failed to respond completely on one set of records but ultimately discharged its s. 6(1) duty. No order to conduct further searches or to provide a complete response is necessary.
Applicant requested copies of correspondence relating to his rent subsidy. Commission provided copies of records it was able to locate. Commission explained why no further records were available. Ministry found to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty to assist the applicant.
The applicant requested a copy of all WCB records pertaining to her that were contained outside of her claim file. The WCB’s search for records was adequate and it met its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search
Applicant requested review of BC Archives’ failure to respond within s. 7 time limits and to take a time extension under s. 10. BC Archives found not to have met its ss. 6(1) and 7 duties but not found to have breached s. 10.
The applicant requested employment records relating to herself for a specific period of time. The Ministry disclosed records, withholding some information under ss. 13(1) and 22. Applicant requested review of severing and Ministry’s search. Ministry disclosed most s. 13(1) information and some records it had inadvertently originally missed in copying records. The Ministry has complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and properly withheld third-party personal information under s. 22. No order is necessary regarding s. 13(1).
Applicant requested copies of correspondence from 1993. Ministry provided copies of records it was able to locate. Further searches yielded no more records. Ministry found to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for records.
The applicant requested all records relating to him at the WCRB. The WCRB correctly decided that certain of the responsive records are excluded from the Act’s scope by ss. 3(1)(b) and (c). The WCRB’s search for records was adequate and met its s. 6(1) duty. The WCRB also correctly decided that other records and information were excepted from disclosure by ss. 14 and 22 of the Act.
The applicant requested all records relating to him at the MSDL. The MSDL’s initial search for records was not adequate, but its later search efforts met its s. 6(1) duty. The MSDL correctly decided that the one record in dispute is excepted from disclosure by s. 14 of the Act.
The applicants made an access request to the City that contained a number of elements and asked for answers to questions. In disclosing some responsive records, making others available for inspection, and answering questions raised in the request, the City discharged its duty to assist the applicants under s. 6(1) of the Act.
The applicant requested records relating to the College’s accidental disclosure, in 1997, of prescription-related information of two hospital patients. The College initially failed to conduct a reasonable search for records, but corrected that failure by searching again for records during mediation. The College is authorized to withhold a legal opinion under s. 14. The College is required by s. 22(1) to withhold third party personal information.
Applicant requested records related to an investigation he believed had been done about him during a job competition. Ministry treated request as one for updated disclosure and said it had no records post-dating earlier request. Applicant requested review of adequacy of search. Ministry found to have conducted adequate search
The applicant, a union representing ICBC employees, submitted a series of requests for information on several hundred senior ICBC employees. ICBC created software in order to respond and then provided computer-generated records to the applicant. The applicant also submitted requests for records on alternatives for ICBC’s corporate structure, to which ICBC responded by providing briefings. The applicant requested reviews of ICBC’s failure to respond in time, of a fee estimate, of ICBC’s compliance with its s. 6 duty to assist and of ICBC’s compliance with its s. 8 duty to inform the applicant of a decision to refuse access. ICBC is found to have calculated the estimated fee in compliance with s. 75. ICBC is found largely not to have complied with its s. 6, 7 or 8 duties, but no order is necessary respecting ss. 6-8
Applicant made two requests for access to specific dated letters in the custody of UBC. UBC disclosed all but one, which could not be found and which UBC had reason to believe did not exist. UBC fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for records
Applicant requested records related to communications regarding a legal action between himself, on his son’s behalf, and ICBC. ICBC disclosed records but applicant not satisfied with ICBC’s search. ICBC searched again, disclosed more records and withheld others under s. 14. ICBC found to have misinterpreted request and to have failed to conduct a proper search. ICBC found to have later rectified its failure to interpret the request reasonably, but some records it found and considered still out of scope were in fact subject to the request. ICBC ordered to process additional responsive records. ICBC also found to have withheld records properly under s. 14
Applicant requested records about himself in 1998 and again in 2000. In 1998, the VPD provided all releasable responsive records and, in 2000, only those releasable records that post-dated records from 1998 request. In 2000, applicant again wanted disclosure of all records, including those released in 1998. VPD found to have met its s. 6(1) duty in supplying updated disclosure only.
Applicant sought his own claim file records from the WCB. WCB provided some records immediately and provided others later, in stages. WCB discovered and provided further records during the course of mediation by this Office. WCB found to ultimately have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty. Section 22(3)(a) found to apply to names and medical information of other WCB claimants in requested records.
Applicant made access requests, to the two public bodies, regarding communication of his personal information from one to the other. He received records from each, but alleged that both public bodies failed to conduct adequate searches for responsive records. Both public bodies were found to have conducted adequate searches for records as required by s. 6(1).
Applicant sought vendor numbers for all ICBC suppliers whose status as such had, throughout ICBCs existence, been revoked, reinstated, suspended or refused. ICBC refused disclosure of certain records under ss. 17 and 21(1)(c)(iii). ICBC’s initial submission consisted of its disclosure of a computer printout listing suppliers whose numbers had been suspended or revoked and abandoned its reliance on ss. 17 and 21. ICBC at that time said it kept no record of, and could not generate a record of, any businesses who had been refused supplier numbers when they applied or of suppliers whose supplier numbers had been reinstated after suspension or revocation. ICBC is not obliged under s. 6(2) to create a record responding to the applicant’s request.
Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1), as information does not consist of advice or recommendations. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld under that section, but s. 22(1) applies, in part on the basis of s. 22(3)(a), to some of the same information. Section 22(3)(d) does not apply to information about ministry employees’ work-related actions, so s. 22(1) does not apply to that information. Ministry found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
The applicant requested records from the City relating to a complaint he made against a member of Vancouver Police Department. City responded that it was unable to locate any records in its custody or under its control. City found to have conducted reasonable search under s. 6(1).
Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information found in records relating to SFU’s review of a third party’s employment performance or associated records. Public interest disclosure not required. Personal information was not covered by s. 22(4). SFU was required to disclose minor amounts of information that was not covered by s. 22(1).
As one of many access requests to the VPB, the applicant sought copies of correspondence connected in some respect with his Police Act complaints against various members of the Vancouver Police Department. VPB found to have complied with its duty under s. 6(1) to search for records.
Applicants requested lists of suppliers who received payments under $10,000 for fiscal years ending 1996, 1997, 1998. City provided 1998 list first and 1996 and 1997 lists later; City found to have complied with duty under s. 6(1) to respond accurately and completely to the request.
Applicant sought records from ICBC related to personal injury claims he had made, some of which resulted in litigation. ICBC’s responses to applicant, in terms of its reasons for refusal to disclose and descriptions of records, were adequate for the purposes of ss. 6(1) and 8(1), though more detail was desirable. ICBC’s delay in responding was contrary to the Act in relation to one request. After close of inquiry, ICBC abandoned reliance on s. 14 and s. 17 for almost all records. ICBC would not have succeeded in s. 14 or s. 17 claims for released records. ICBC is required in each case, however, to prove application of litigation privilege to each responsive record, by showing that both elements of the common law test for that privilege have been met in relation to each record. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interests from disclosure of specific information, on a record by record basis. ICBC properly claimed s. 14 for contents of defence counsel’s file, which it continued to withhold. ICBC was required by s. 22 to withhold small amounts of third party personal information.
Applicant sought gaming policy records from the Ministry of Employment and Investment and two other public bodies. Applicant named several records he said should be in public body’s possession. Public body found to not have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty, initially or during review and inquiry processes. Public body ordered to conduct further search for records.
Applicant sought gaming policy records from this British Columbia Lottery Corporation and other public bodies. Applicant named several records he said should be in public body’s possession, though it did not produce them. Public body found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty.
Applicant sought gaming policy records from the British Columbia Racing Commission and two other public bodies. Applicant named several records he said should be in public body’s possession, though it did not produce them. Public body found not to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty initially, but further search not ordered, as public body subsequently fulfilled its s. 6(1) search obligation.
Public body complied with its duty to applicant under s. 6(1) in its search for requested record.
Applicant requested her personal information from BCIT, which failed to respond to her access request. BCIT responded, almost a year and a half later, after intervention by this Office. BCIT’s response addressed only part of the applicant’s request. BCIT found not to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty to respond without delay and to respond openly, accurately and completely. BCIT found not to have responded when required by s. 7(1). Reasons given for response were inadequate. BCIT ordered to conduct further searches and to respond to applicant’s request completely and accurately. Conditions imposed respecting timing of further search and of response to applicant. Having failed to make submissions in inquiry, BCIT found not to be authorized by ss. 13, 15 or 17 to refuse to disclose information in the one disputed record. Minimal third party personal information in record appropriately severed under s. 22(1).
Public body complied with its duty to applicant under s. 6(1) in its search for a specific individual’s “job description”. Public body found, but did not provide applicant with, a “classification questionnaire”, a record with a different name that set out the functions and duties of the person’s position as it was in 1995.
Public body disclosed records in response to applicant’s request for records relating to a land development. Public body found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duties for most of request, but not regarding one class of records.
Applicant requested Board records relating to a previous labour relations matter in which she was involved. Board properly withheld some records because they were personal notes, communications or draft decisions of persons acting in a quasi judicial capacity as contemplated by s. 3(1)(b). Board’s search efforts fulfilled its s. 6(1) obligation.
Allegation that public body failed to assist applicant not established. Evidence did not establish disappearance or suppression of requested records. Public body adopted a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the applicant's requests and was justified in applying s. 14 to notes of telephone advice from its lawyer and s. 22 to names of confidential referees. It was permissible for the public body to combine three requests for closely related material for the purpose of calculating 'free' location and retrieval time under s. 75(2)(a) of the Act.
Applicant sought copies of all records relating to her dental treatment, including treatment charts, by various dentists and at a clinic. College disclosed 27 records and severed one record under s. 22 of the Act. Applicant considered College's response incomplete, saying it failed to provide all records responsive to her request. Applicant sent follow-up letter to College, to which College replied, clarifying its initial response. College found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duties.
Applicant complained to UBC about his treatment by UBC staff. He later sought copies of all records relating to investigation of his complaint. UBC disclosed 45 pages of records without any severing. Applicant alleged UBC failed to provide records responsive to his request. UBC found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duties.
Applicant made a series of requests for access to his personal information.
UBC disclosed large amounts of information, but withheld some third party personal
information, information subject to solicitor client privilege, and advice or
recommendations. UBC was authorized to withhold privileged information and some
advice or recommendations. UBC was required to withhold third party personal
information that would identify individuals who gave confidential evaluations of the
applicant, but UBC ordered to comply with s. 22(5) duty to provide the applicant with
summaries of those evaluations. UBC was found to have fulfilled its duty to assist the
applicant. No evidence of bias on the part of UBC employees handling the applicant’s
access requests at the same time as appeal processes involving the applicant.
The City of Richmond requested the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to its communications with the Province of British Columbia related to the establishment of BCUC’s Inquiry into the Regulation of Municipal Energy Utilities. BCUC refused access under various sections of FIPPA. The adjudicator finds the records are not required to be disclosed under s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override); information was properly withheld under s. 13 (advice or recommendations); and that information was not properly withheld under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator orders BCUC to disclose the information it withheld under s. 14.
The City of Richmond requested the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the establishment of BCUC’s Inquiry into the Regulation of Municipal Energy Utilities. BCUC refused to disclose the records on the basis that they are excluded from the scope of FIPPA, some pages by s. 3(3)(e) of FIPPA and others by s. 61(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act (ATA). BCUC claimed, in the alternative, that ss. 13 and 14 of FIPPA apply to some of the information in the records. The adjudicator finds that some pages are excluded from FIPPA’s scope by s. 61(2)(a) of the ATA. The adjudicator also finds that: other pages are not excluded from FIPPA’s scope by s. 3(3)(e); are not required to be disclosed under s. 25(1)(b); and only some are properly withheld under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator orders BCUC to disclose the information to which ss.13 and 14 do not apply.
An applicant 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 records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
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.
An applicant requested that The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia (Association) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to certain records where he is mentioned or is otherwise identifiable. The Association withheld information in the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, the Association’s application of ss. 13 (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator also confirmed the association’s application of s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and found s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) did not apply to the remaining information. The adjudicator ordered the Association to disclose some information to the applicant.
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.
An applicant requested that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records related to a motor vehicle accident. ICBC provided some information in response but withheld other information under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, ICBC’s application of ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (legal advice and litigation privilege), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator also confirmed ICBC’s application of settlement privilege which is a common law exception to disclosure. The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose some information to the applicant.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records relating to the investigation of claims of bullying and harassment. These claims were made by one member of the Town of Qualicum Beach’s (Town) Council against other members of the Council. The Town withheld information from the responsive records under various sections of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, the Town’s decision under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator held that s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) did not apply to the information not properly withheld under s. 13(1). The adjudicator ordered the Town to disclose the information it was not authorized to withhold under s. 13(1) or required to withhold under s. 22(1).
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
An applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) for records relating to herself and a particular College complaint investigation file. The College provided partial access, withholding information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14. The adjudicator also determined that the College is required or authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information that the College withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
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.
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 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.
The applicant requested access to her own personal information from the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC) relating to a complaint that she had made against a member of the CPABC. The CPABC
disclosed some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 15 (harm to law enforcement) and
22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (FIPPA). The CPABC also withheld all of the information under s. 69 of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act (CPAA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(7) of
FIPPA overrides s. 69 of the CPAA. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(3), 13(1) and 15 of FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all
of the information. The adjudicator ordered the CPABC to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.
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 requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
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.
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. 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(1).
An applicant requested from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) records containing their personal information. VicPD 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 VicPD had correctly applied the exceptions to disclosure and confirmed its decision to withhold the information at issue.
The BC Official Opposition Caucus (applicant) requested a copy of the binders used for the committee stage of Bill 44-2018, Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Heath Tax) Act, 2018 (Bill 44) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) disclosed some of the information but withheld other information under s. 13(1) of FIPPA (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applies to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) does not apply to other withheld information and ordered the Ministry to disclose this information to the applicant.
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.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a copy of an audit conducted by the Fraser Health Authority. The audit focused on several companies that the Fraser Health Authority contracted to provide home care support services. Fraser Health Authority refused to disclose all of the information in the record under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and parts of the record under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 17(1) (harm to
a public body’s financial or economic interests) of FIPPA. The applicant claimed the record should be disclosed under s. 25(1)(b) since the disclosure is clearly in the public interest. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to refuse access to the record
under s. 14 and concluded s. 25(1)(b) did not apply in the circumstances. The
adjudicator did not find it necessary to also consider whether the Ministry was authorized to withhold information in the record under ss. 13(1) and 17(1).
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, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board (Board) for records relating to an investigation into the conduct of a former chief of the Victoria Police Department. The Board provided the applicant with responsive records severed under ss. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of FIPPA), 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA, as well as common law settlement privilege. The applicant withdrew his request for review of the records and information withheld under ss. 12(3)(b), 15(1)(l) and 22(1). The adjudicator confirmed the Board’s decision under s. 3(1)(c), determined that the Board was authorized to refuse to disclose some but not all of the information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 14, and found it unnecessary to consider settlement privilege.
The public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file
under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to
public body’s financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply because the records had been in existence for 10 or more years, so s. 13(3) was engaged. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision, in part, to refuse access under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1) and ordered the public body to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
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.
An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal information. The public body refused access to information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that ss. 13,14 and 22 applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 17 did not. The adjudicator ordered the public body to disclose a small amount of information to the applicant.
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 made seven requests to five public bodies for access to records relating to an identified mining project. The public bodies withheld information in the records under a number of exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the public bodies applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the public bodies were authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(1)(cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a system), 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party
personal privacy). However, the adjudicator found that some of the withheld information
did not fall within the claimed exceptions, and ordered the public bodies to disclose that information to the applicant.
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 a request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC) for access to records relating to two of his worker’s compensation claims. WorkSafeBC refused to disclose the disputed information under s. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that some, but not all, of the withheld information was advice or recommendations under s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that s. 13(2) did not apply to the advice or recommendations and, therefore, WorkSafeBC properly withheld that information under s. 13(1).
The applicant requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
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.
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 made a request to the Town of Gibsons (Town) for access to records relating to the Town’s decision to issue development permits to a company. The Town refused to disclose the records and information in dispute under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to most, but not all, of the disputed information. The adjudicator also found that the Town was not authorized to refuse to disclose some of the disputed information because it is information similar to an environmental impact statement under s. 13(2)(f).
An applicant requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (College). The College withheld information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the College applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the College was required to withhold some information under ss. 13 and 14, but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13, 14 and 22 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(5) was not applicable since a third party did not confidentially supply any information about the applicant. However, the adjudicator ordered the College to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient explanation and evidence that the College exercised its discretion on proper grounds and considered all relevant factors.
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.
An applicant requested information related to a specific motor vehicle accident claim from ICBC. ICBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several exceptions to access in FIPPA. At inquiry, the adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision to apply these FIPPA exceptions to most of the information in dispute and ordered ICBC to disclose the rest to the applicant.
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).
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.
The applicant pharmacy requested information from the Ministry of Health
relating to the investigation of the pharmacy and the termination of its licence, including
communications with the College of Pharmacists. The Ministry provided over 3500
pages of records but withheld information in those records under a number of exceptions
in FIPPA. The adjudicator found that only ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 13 (advice
and recommendations) were at issue in the inquiry. The adjudicator also found that the
Ministry could withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 14 and that
s. 13 did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to provide the applicant with
access to the information to which ss. 13 and 14 did not apply.
The applicant requested access to records relating to investigations into the applicant’s conduct while employed by the provincial government. The public bodies refused to disclose the responsive records and information in dispute under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed that ss. 13 and 14 applied to the information withheld under those sections. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(l) applied to teleconference participant ID numbers, but not to physical meeting locations. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 applied to most of the personal information withheld under that section, but not to a small amount of third-party personal information related to scheduling.
The applicant requested access to records related to the Water Management Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed some information to the applicant, but it withheld information relying on several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator also determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy), but ordered the Ministry to disclose the remaining information withheld under these sections to the applicant. Lastly, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because it provided no evidence that it had properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1).
Two applicants requested access to records related to themselves and a particular property. The City withheld information in the records on the basis that s. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13(1) and 14 only applied to some of the withheld information and ordered the City to disclose the remainder to the applicants. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision to withhold information under s. 22(1).
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.
An employee of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA) requested access to emails which mention his name. VCHA disclosed emails which the employee had received or sent or on which he had been copied. It withheld other emails under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that s. 13(1) also did not apply to some of the information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the rest of the information and confirmed VCHA’s decision to withhold this information.
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 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.
The applicant corporation made a request to the City of Parksville (City)
for records relating to the City's decision to undertake litigation against the applicant.
The City refused to disclose portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal local
body confidences under s.12(3)(b), advice or recommendations under s. 13(1), solicitor
client privileged information under s. 14 or would unreasonably invade third party privacy
under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the City could withhold some but not all of the
information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1) and 14 of FIPPA. As a result of these findings, it
was not necessary for the adjudicator to consider whether s. 22 applied.
The applicant requested 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.
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.
The applicant requested information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) about the suspension of three physicians’ hospital privileges. VIHA refused to disclose the information pursuant to s. 51 of the Evidence Act and ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 51 did not apply to the records but confirmed VIHA’s decisions regarding most of the information withheld under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator concluded that s. 17 did not apply to the records.
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.
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.
An applicant requested records from the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC). Specifically, he wanted information about the person he had nominated for a CPABC fellowship. CPABC refused to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 13 applied and confirmed CPABC’s decision to refuse to disclose the information under that exception. There was no need to make a decision regarding s. 22.
The applicant requested a list describing the subject matters of briefing notes. The Ministry refused to disclose some descriptions under ss. 3(1)(h) (outside scope of Act), 12 (cabinet confidences), 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision regarding ss. 3(1)(h) and 14. She also confirmed its decision regarding s. 13(1), with the exception of eight of the descriptions. She found that s. 16(1)(b) applied to only five of the eight, and the other three must be disclosed to the applicant. There was no need to consider ss. 12 or 22.
The applicant requested 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.
An applicant requested records related to the Ministry's participation in a federal review panel concerning the applicant's proposed mining project. The Ministry provided the responsive records but withheld some information pursuant to ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a system), 17 (harm to economic interests), 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator held that the Ministry was required to refuse to disclose all of the information in the records withheld under ss. 21 and 22 and was authorized to refuse to disclose most of the information in the records withheld under ss. 13, 14, 15(1)(l) and 17. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to provide a small amount of information to the applicant.
An applicant requested records about a crane investigation. WorkSafeBC disclosed some information, but it withheld other information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13 and 14 apply to some of the withheld information.
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 VIHA employee requested access to all information about her. VIHA provided records but refused to disclose some information under ss. 3(1)(d) (outside scope of Act), 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that s. 3(1)(d) did not apply and VIHA was required to disclose that information to the applicant. The adjudicator confirmed VIHA’s ss. 13, 14 and 22 decisions regarding some of the information. However, the adjudicator found that VIHA was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose other information under those exceptions and ordered VIHA to disclose it to the applicant.
A journalist requested records related to the business case for the replacement of the Massey Tunnel with a bridge. The Ministry of Finance disclosed the responsive records in severed form. It argued at the inquiry that ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) and 13(1) (advice or recommendations) apply to the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applies to all of the withheld information and ordered the Ministry to withhold it. It was not necessary to consider s. 12(1).
The Ministry disclosed a report in severed form, withholding some information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to most of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that s. 13(2)(a) (factual material), s. 13(2)(g) (final report) and s. 13(2)(m) (information cited publicly) did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information to which s. 13(1) does not apply.
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
An employee of the Regional District of Nanaimo requested access to any records containing his name. The Regional District provided records but it refused to disclose some information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 17 (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body), 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Regional District’s decision regarding s. 13 but found that it was not authorized or required to refuse access to information under ss. 12(1), 17 or 21. The adjudicator also found that the Regional District is only required to refuse to give the applicant access to a portion of the information being withheld under s. 22.
The applicant requested that the Vancouver Board of Education provide all records containing information pertaining to the applicant. The Board disclosed some records while withholding others under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (legal advice) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the Board is authorized to refuse to disclose information under s.13 and is required to refuse to disclose the majority of information under s. 22.
An applicant requested records regarding the City of Vancouver Bid Committee, which makes decisions about the City’s procurement of goods and services. The City identified reports that were prepared by City staff for the Bid Committee. It disclosed portions of these reports but withheld some information under ss. 13 and 15 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City is authorized to refuse to disclose the majority of the information withheld under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and all of the information withheld under s. 15 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement).
An applicant requested 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.
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 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 relating to his employment with the IIO. The IIO withheld records and information under s. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), s. 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the IIO’s decision regarding ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 16(1)(b) and 22. The adjudicator determined that the IIO was not authorized to refuse the applicant access to information under s. 15 and required it give the applicant access to that information (subject only to information that it was authorized to refuse to disclose under the other exceptions).
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.
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 former chair of the Board of Education for School District No. 71 (Comox Valley) requested records related to an operational review of the school district. The Board refused to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that all of the information withheld under s. 14 was protected by solicitor client privilege and that the privilege had not been waived.
A journalist requested records related to the BC Association of Chiefs of
Police and the BC Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police. The Victoria Police
Department disclosed some records but refused to disclose other records and
information under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 15, 16 and 22 of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”) and s. 182 of the Police Act. The adjudicator found
that some records could be withheld because they are outside the scope of FIPPA due
to s. 3(1)(c) of FIPPA and others because s. 182 of the Police Act applied.
The adjudicator also found that some information could be withheld under s. 13 (advice
or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (1)(c) and (l) (harm to law
enforcement) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). However, VicPD was not authorized
to refuse to disclose any of the information it withheld under s. 16 (harm to
intergovernmental relations or negotiations).
The applicant 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.
The applicant requested records used to develop communications material to support the economic impacts of the Times of India Film Awards. The Ministry withheld some of the requested information from responsive emails on the basis that several exceptions to disclosure under FIPPA applied: Cabinet confidences (s. 12), advice and recommendations (s. 13), harm to the business interests of a third party (s. 21), and unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy (s. 22). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold some information under ss. 12 and 22, and authorized to withhold other information under s. 13. The Ministry is not required to withhold information under s. 21.
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.
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.
UBC refused access to the rubric, criteria and scoring instructions it uses to assess the personal profiles of prospective students under ss. 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(e) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 17 (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 3(1)(d) and (e) did not apply, and the records were within the scope of FIPPA. The adjudicator also found that the information in dispute was not advice or recommendations under s. 13 and that disclosure could not reasonably be expected to harm UBC’s financial or economic interests under s. 17. UBC was ordered to disclose the requested information.
An applicant requested records relating to a program about medical residency positions for international medical graduates. The Ministry of Health disclosed some information, but withheld most of it on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) or s. 14 (legal advice) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information withheld under s. 14, but not the information withheld under s. 13.
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.
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.
An applicant requested records about City of Vancouver Bid Committee meetings. The Bid Committee makes decisions regarding the procurement of goods and services for the City. In response to the applicant’s request, the City identified reports that were prepared by City staff for the Bid Committee. It disclosed portions of these reports, but withheld some information under ss. 13, 16, 17 and 21 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City is authorized to refuse to disclose nearly all of the information withheld under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), but that it must disclose the remaining information.
A former City of Vancouver employee requested all correspondence containing his name that was authored in certain time periods by any of eleven City employees. The City disclosed most of the correspondence but withheld some responsive information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator authorized the City to withhold some information under s. 13 while finding that other information must be disclosed. The adjudicator also determined that the City was required to refuse most of the information withheld under s. 22, but that some of the information was contact information so must be disclosed.
In Order F14-27 it was held that VIHA could not sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that those portions were ‘outside the scope’ of the applicant’s request. A reconsideration was sought and this order decides that issue. FIPPA does not authorize a public body to sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that they are outside the scope of an applicant’s request. VIHA is ordered to consider the applicant’s request as it relates to those portions and disclose them with the exception of any information to which exceptions to disclosure set out in Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA apply.
The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association requested that ICBC provide records related to the data sharing and privacy aspects of combining the BC driver’s licence with the BC Services Card. ICBC refused to disclose some of the information in the responsive records under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (legal advice) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that, with a few exceptions, most of information was properly withheld under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator determined that disclosure of the withheld personal information would not be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, so ICBC was not authorized to withhold it under s. 22. ICBC also refused to disclose parts of the records on the basis that they were “not responsive” or outside the scope of the applicant’s request. The adjudicator held that ICBC is not authorized to refuse to disclose the information on that basis, and the only part of a responsive record that may be withheld is that which is covered by an exception under Part 2 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested the Ministry provide records related to his landfill operation. The Ministry refused to disclose some information under s. 3(1)(h) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 3(1)(h) did not apply and the records were within the scope of FIPPA. The adjudicator also found that most of the information withheld under ss. 13, 14 and 22, and all of the information withheld under ss. 15(1)(d) and (l), was appropriately withheld under those exceptions. The Ministry also severed information from the records on the basis that the information was “not responsive” to the applicant’s request. The adjudicator held that FIPPA does not authorize refusing to disclose information on that basis.
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Justice relating to a workplace investigation involving him that resulted in his employment being terminated. The Ministry disclosed some records and withheld others, citing ss. 13, 14, 15, and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information withheld under ss. 14 and 22, and all of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(c). The remaining information was required to be withheld under s. 22 or authorized to be withheld under ss. 13 or 15(1)(l).The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Justice relating to a workplace investigation involving him that resulted in his employment being terminated. The Ministry disclosed some records and withheld others, citing ss. 13, 14, 15, and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information withheld under ss. 14 and 22, and all of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(c). The remaining information was required to be withheld under s. 22 or authorized to be withheld under ss. 13 or 15(1)(l).
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Health relating to the regulation of raw milk in BC. The Ministry disclosed some records to the applicant. The Ministry withheld some records under ss.13 (policy advice), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22 (third party personal information) of FIPPA and some others on the basis that they are outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(j). The adjudicator ordered disclosure of the information withheld under s. 3(1)(j) and some of the information withheld under ss. 13, 14 and 22. The remaining information was required to be withheld under s. 22 or authorized to be withheld under ss. 13 or 14.
A journalist requested administrative records about himself that were generated or received by the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner within a specified time period. The OPCC withheld some information in a responsive record that was related to the processing of a previous access request the journalist had made to the OPCC, on the basis that disclosure of the information would reveal policy advice or recommendations (s. 13 of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that the OPCC was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information withheld under s. 13.
A professor at Thompson Rivers University requested records of the committee that considered his application for a promotion. The adjudicator found that all of the records were assembled for and integral to the committee’s deliberations, that they consisted of advice or recommendations and that s. 13(1) therefore applied to them.
The applicant requested access to records related to data sharing and research agreements between the Ministry of Health and four individuals, including information about delays or impediments to accessing data for research purposes. The Ministry refused to disclose some information in the responsive records under ss. 13, 15(1)(a), 15(1)(l) and 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”). The Ministry established that disclosure of some of the information at issue could reasonably be expected to harm a computer system, so could be withheld under s. 15(1)(l). However, the Ministry did not prove that disclosure would be harmful to law enforcement, so it was not authorized to refuse to disclose information under s. 15(1)(a). Nor did the Ministry establish that it was authorized under s. 13 to withhold policy advice or recommendations because that information had already been disclosed elsewhere in the records. Finally, the adjudicator ordered disclosure of most of the information that was withheld under s. 22(1) because disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy.
The applicant, on behalf of his adult daughter, requested access to records related to the daughter’s claims and appeals before WCAT. WCAT refused to disclose some of the requested information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that some of the records were outside the scope of FIPPA because they were communications and draft decisions of individuals acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, so s. 3(1)(b) applied. Further, WCAT was authorized under s. 13(1) to refuse disclosure of some of the information contained in the records because it was advice or recommendations developed by or for WCAT. The adjudicator also found that WCAT was required to continue to refuse to disclose all of the personal information withheld under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested information relating to the Burrard Street Bridge. The City released some routine inspection records but withheld portions of eleven engineering reports about different aspects of the bridge, citing ss. 13, 15, 17, 19 and 21 of FIPPA. The Adjudicator ordered the records disclosed because none of the exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA applied.
The applicant requested information from ICBC relating to a claim she made concerning a motor vehicle accident. ICBC released some information but withheld other information under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 17 and 22 of FIPPA. ICBC is authorized to withhold most of the information it withheld under s. 14 of FIPPA because it is subject to solicitor-client privilege. ICBC is required to withhold some information it withheld under s. 22 of FIPPA because releasing the information would be an unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy. Some information does not need to be disclosed because it is outside of the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c) of the Act. The remaining information must be disclosed.
An applicant, a lawyer, sought records relating to court applications by ICBC for personal costs against him. The personal costs applications arose from a motor vehicle accident claim in which the applicant was counsel. ICBC withheld the records under s. 13 and all of the records save one page under s. 14 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that all of the information withheld under s. 14 as subject to solicitor-client privilege could be withheld. ICBC was required to disclose the information it withheld in the remaining page of the records because it did not contain advice or recommendations under s. 13 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested information from the Vancouver Island Health Authority relating to VIHA’s decision-making process concerning fixed site needle exchange services in Greater Victoria. VIHA withheld information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13, 14 and 22 of FIPPA. It also withheld other information on the basis that the information was outside of the scope of the applicant’s request. The adjudicator was not satisfied that s. 12(3)(b) applies. However, he determined that ss. 14 and 22 apply to all of the information withheld under those sections and that s. 13 applies to most of the information withheld under that section. The adjudicator also ordered VIHA to process the applicant’s request for the information it had marked out of scope.
An applicant requested records about himself and the British Columbia Onsite Sewage Association from the Ministry of Health. The Ministry withheld responsive records on the basis that: disclosure would reveal policy advice or recommendations (s. 13), solicitor-client privilege applies (s. 14), and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties (s. 22). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold most of the records under these sections, but it was ordered to disclose some records. The adjudicator also determined the Ministry failed to exercise its discretion for the records withheld under s. 13 and ordered it to do so.
The applicant journalist requested documents about possible changes to liquor distribution in BC. The Ministry responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch withheld information in three documents citing Cabinet confidences under s. 12 of FIPPA, and that the withheld information constituted advice and recommendations under s. 13 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that s. 12 or s. 13 applied to most of the withheld information. Neither s. 12 nor s. 13 applied to a small amount of the withheld information in two of the three documents, so that information could be released to the applicant.
The applicants requested records relating to an investigation into their complaint that City officials improperly entered duplex units owned by the applicants. The City disclosed some records, but withheld portions of a memo on the basis that the withheld information was policy advice or recommendations, legal advice, and information that would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy if disclosed. The adjudicator determined that these sections applied to most of the withheld information, but ordered that some information be released.
The applicant requested copies of communications between the City of Powell River and its auditor related to a complaint the applicant made to the City about a barge facility. The adjudicator found that the City was permitted to withhold two legal opinions under s. 14, and parts of an email by the City’s auditor that contains expert opinion and advice under s. 13 of FIPPA. The adjudicator required the City to disclose a draft letter by the City’s auditor containing information already released by the City, three emails from a Councillor and parts of an email from the City’s auditor.
The applicant, a lawyer whose legal practice was under review by the Law Society, requested records related to the review. The Law Society withheld some information from the records under ss. 13, 14 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Law Society was authorized to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 13 and all of the information for which it claimed solicitor-client privilege under s. 14. The adjudicator also found that the Law Society must continue to refuse to disclose the personal information it withheld from the records under s. 22(3)(d) because the information relates to the employment, occupational or educational history of third parties and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy.
A City of Vancouver employee was suspended from work on two occasions. He requested all records regarding his suspensions. The City withheld records under ss. 13, 19(1)(a), and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator authorized the City to withhold certain records under s. 13, and required the City to withhold other records under s. 22. Sections 13 or 22 applied to all records. The adjudicator did not order disclosure of any records.
The ARA requested correspondence and associated records between ICBC and the federal Competition Bureau. ICBC withheld some of the information on the basis that it constituted advice and recommendations and it was subject to solicitor-client privilege. ICBC also argued that in accordance with the doctrine of paramountcy of federal legislation, FIPPA did not apply in this case because it was in conflict with federal legislation. The Assistant Commissioner found that the doctrine of paramountcy did not apply because there was no valid federal law that applied with respect to the records in the custody and control of ICBC. The Assistant Commissioner found that solicitor-client privilege applied to all of the records for which ICBC claimed this exception. With respect to the remaining information, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the advice and recommendations exception authorized ICBC to withhold some but not all of the information it claimed under this exception.
The applicant was a lawyer involved in a class action lawsuit against UBC over parking fees. She requested a letter and memo that UBC sent to the Ministry concerning the lawsuit. The Ministry refused on the basis that the information consisted of recommendations and advice under s. 13 of FIPPA and because it was protected by solicitor-client privilege. The applicant argued the disputed information constituted lobbying rather than advice. The adjudicator found that lobbying is a matter strictly regulated by the Lobbyists Registration Act and that is not what occurred in this case. This finding is consistent with the scheme of s. 13 that protects advice developed by one public body for another. The adjudicator also rejected the applicant‘s argument for release of the letter and memo because they were a ?proposal? concerning a change to a program about which the Ministry had made a decision. The adjudicator concluded that if the disputed records were a ?proposal? it concerned a change to legislation, not a program.
The respondent requested access to emails concerning a room in an SFU residence. SFU provided access to the requested records, but severed portions under s. 13 of FIPPA as advice or recommendations. The respondent requested a review of SFU’s s. 13 decision and also argued that s. 25 (public interest override) applied. SFU asked that an inquiry not be held as s. 13 clearly applies. The adjudicator concluded that it is plain and obvious that the withheld portions of the records are advice or recommendations and it is also not necessary to consider whether s. 25 applies. Adjudicator granted Simon Fraser University’s request that this matter not proceed to inquiry.
Adjudicator's decision to deny public body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be held.
The applicant requested personal information from two ICBC claims files. ICBC disclosed many records but withheld some in whole or part. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s application of legal advice privilege and, as lawsuits were ongoing, litigation privilege (s. 14). ICBC’s application of s. 22 (personal information of third parties) was confirmed for some but not all information and some information is ordered disclosed. ICBC showed reasonable expectation of financial harm for reserve information but not other information related to its defence in the lawsuits (s. 17) and this other information is ordered disclosed. ICBC properly withheld some information that was advice and recommendations it received from its claims examiner and a physician (s. 13). ICBC is ordered to reconsider its decision to refuse access to CPIC information under s. 16(1)(b)
Commissioner’s ruling on attempt by unions representing third-party teacher to argue applicability of discretionary disclosure exceptions not applied by the public body.
Applicant requested her ICBC claim files and files from her ICBC-appointed lawyer. ICBC disclosed many records, but refused access to others. Sections 14, 17 and 22 found to apply to some other remaining information. Section 14 found not to apply to two pages and s. 22 found not to apply to several records.
The applicant made a request for records related to the Core Services Review of the BC Ambulance Service. The Ministry denied access under ss. 12(1), 13, and 17. Prior to the inquiry, the Ministry released some records, fulfilling its duties under s. 4(2). The Ministry carried out its duties under s. 6. Section 25 does not apply. The Ministry applied s. 12(1) appropriately.
The applicant requested access to staff reports to City Council, and to minutes of Council meetings, regarding a City contract with a third party business. The City is not required to disclose information in the public interest under s. 25. The City is authorized by s. 13 to refuse to disclose advice or recommendations in the records and by s. 14 to refuse to disclose information protected by solicitor client privilege.
In response to the applicant’s request for all records containing personal information about him “at the University”, UVic disclosed many records but withheld portions of records under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14 and 22 of the Act. Applicant alleged that UVic failed to perform its search obligation under s. 6, but UVic was found to have undertaken a reasonable search for records. Section 25 did not require disclosure in the public interest. UVic was authorized to withhold information under ss. 13 and 14 (ss. 3(1)(c) and 22 having been removed from inquiry by the parties’ agreement).
Applicant requested her personal information from BCIT, which failed to respond to her access request. BCIT responded, almost a year and a half later, after intervention by this Office. BCIT’s response addressed only part of the applicant’s request. BCIT found not to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty to respond without delay and to respond openly, accurately and completely. BCIT found not to have responded when required by s. 7(1). Reasons given for response were inadequate. BCIT ordered to conduct further searches and to respond to applicant’s request completely and accurately. Conditions imposed respecting timing of further search and of response to applicant. Having failed to make submissions in inquiry, BCIT found not to be authorized by ss. 13, 15 or 17 to refuse to disclose information in the one disputed record. Minimal third party personal information in record appropriately severed under s. 22(1).
Applicant sought copies of his personnel file, including records of BC Transit's response to the harassment complaints he filed. BC Transit severed information under sections 13 and 22 of the Act. In addition, it withheld 165 pages under Section 14 of the Act. Applicant entitled to 4 pages of information formerly severed under Section 13 and 22. BC Transit appropriately applied sections 13, 22 and 14 to the other records.
An individual (applicant) asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for access to records related to a meeting between the Ministry and the Society for Canadians Studying Medicine Abroad (SOCASMA). The Ministry provided records but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and other provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision under s. 13(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
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 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 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.
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 requested records from the Northern Health Authority (Authority) containing information about COVID-19 outbreaks at work camps. In response, the Authority released some information but withheld other information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party), and 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to all the information in dispute under that section and that s. 13 applied to some of the information in dispute under that section. The adjudicator also found the Authority was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 21(1). However, the adjudicator found that none of the sections of FIPPA relied on by the Authority applied to the remaining information in dispute and ordered the Authority to release that information to the applicant.
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 applicant made a request to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Ministry) for access to information about the Ministry’s framework for how municipalities may change their policing model. The Ministry provided the applicant with some information but withheld other information under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to withhold all of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) but none of the information in dispute under s. 16(1)(a)(ii) (harm to intergovernmental relations) of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that it was not authorized to withhold under s. 16(1)(a)(ii).
An applicant made a request to the Ministry of 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.
Davey Tree Expert Co. of Canada Limited (Davey) made a request to the City of Nanaimo (City), under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, for records related to the City’s 2018 request for proposals for tree services. The City disclosed some information but withheld its evaluation records in full under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendation) and s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interest of public body). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply at all. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to some of the information but also found that the City had not exercised discretion properly in deciding to withhold this information. The adjudicator therefore ordered the City to exercise its discretion regarding this information, in light of specified factors.
The applicant requested records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
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.
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 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.
The applicant requested all minutes of City Council and committee meetings, emails, and social media messages that included any variation of her name from the City of Pitt Meadows (the City). The City disclosed the records but withheld some information under ss. (13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 14 in full, and its decision under ss. 22(1) in part, and ordered the City to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1) to the applicant.
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 applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the BC Securities Commission (BCSC) for records relating to the BCSC’s penalty collection rate, amendments to the Securities Act, and the BCSC’s collection action against the applicant. The BCSC withheld the information in dispute under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(1), 13(1), and 22(1) applied to some, but not all, of the information in dispute and ordered the BCSC to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under those sections. The adjudicator also ordered the BCSC to reconsider its decision to withhold certain information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient evidence that the BCSC considered all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to withhold that information.
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).
An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related
to an external investigation of the University’s treatment of the applicant. The University
disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator
determined that the University was authorized to withhold all the information withheld
under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some information withheld under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered the University to disclose that information.
An applicant requested the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) provide records
relating to public opinion polls conducted from January to September 2020. The Ministry
provided records but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to some but not all of the information. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose some of the information.
The 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.
The applicant asked the Board of Education of School District No. 43 (School District) to provide him with access to information about his child’s educational supports and assistance. The School District disclosed responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the School District was authorized to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) and was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the School District to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to the applicant.
The College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (College) received a request from an individual who requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the College’s investigation of a pharmacist. The College provided the individual with access to most of the information in the responsive records but withheld some information under various FIPPA exceptions to access. The individual requested a review of the College’s decision. The issues between the parties were eventually narrowed down to the College’s decision to withhold information in a particular record under both s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences) of FIPPA. A central issue between the parties was whether the disputed record qualified as a report under s. 13(2)(k). Except for a small amount of information, the adjudicator found the College correctly applied s. 13(1) to the information at issue and that s. 13(2)(k) did not apply to the disputed record. For the small amount of information that the College was not authorized to withhold under s. 13(1), the adjudicator also found s. 12(3)(b) did not apply to this information and ordered the College to disclose it.
The applicant made 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, 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.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
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 applicant requested access to information about an assessment of its property transfers conducted by the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) under the Property Transfer Tax Act (BC) and the Ministry's review of the applicant's objection to this assessment. The adjudicator reviewed the Ministry's decision to withhold some responsive information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. She determined the Ministry was authorized to withhold some but not all of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) and ordered the Ministry to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to a residential property. The City of Burnaby (City) withheld information in the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. In some cases, the City applied one or more FIPPA exceptions to the same information. The City also argued some information was not responsive to the applicant’s access request and, therefore, could be withheld. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) review the City’s decision to refuse access. The adjudicator found the information withheld by the City as “non-responsive” was in fact responsive to the access request and ordered the City to disclose some of that information. The adjudicator also determined the City could not withhold any of the information at issue under s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences). However, the adjudicator decided the City properly applied s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) to some of the information withheld from the responsive records. The City was ordered to disclose the information that the adjudicator determined could not be withheld under a FIPPA exception to access.
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the applicant requested information from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) regarding complaints made about the applicant and the College's response to the applicant's concerns about her medical corporation. The College disclosed most of the information to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege). The adjudicator determined the College was not authorized to withhold any of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) but was authorized to withhold all the information in dispute under s. 14. The adjudicator ordered the College to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose.
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.
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.
An applicant requested records and correspondence relating to the terms of reference given to an external investigator retained by Thompson Rivers University (TRU). TRU disclosed responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. TRU applied both ss. 13 and 14 to the same information. Given the finding that s. 14 did not apply to some of the information, the adjudicator ordered TRU, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the records withheld under s. 13(1) for the purpose of deciding this issue on the merits.
An applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) for records relating to herself and a particular College complaint investigation file. The College provided partial access, withholding information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14. The adjudicator also determined that the College is required or authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information that the College withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
An applicant requested access to records relating to his employment held by the Public Service Agency (PSA). PSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in them under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found PSA was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information withheld under s. 13 (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator also found PSA was required to refuse the applicant access to some, but not all, of the information withheld under s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered PSA to disclose the remainder to the applicant.
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 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.
A property owner requested a copy of the Property Acquisition Manual of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed the record but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and s. 17(1) (financial harm to the public body). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) did not apply and he ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it had withheld under that section. He found that ss. 17(1) applied to some of the information and authorized the Ministry to withhold it but ordered the Ministry to disclose the remainder.
The applicant requested communications related to instructions and guidance given to a Thompson Rivers University (TRU) employee about responding to media inquiries that related to him personally. TRU disclosed responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold all the information it withheld under ss. 14 and some of the information it withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) and ordered TRU to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
An applicant requested the Ministry of Citizens’ Services (MCS) provide access to records about privacy complaints it received about birth alerts. MCS initially withheld information in the records under several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Most of the issues were resolved at the outset of the inquiry, so the adjudicator only had to decide if s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) applied to the records. During the inquiry, the applicant also raised the issue of s. 25 (public interest disclosure) but was not permitted to add that issue into the inquiry. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the implementation of medical assistance in dying practices and procedures by the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). FHA disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information under several exceptions in Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) applied to some, but not all, of the information FHA withheld. The adjudicator ordered FHA to disclose the information which was not covered by ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), or 22(1) of FIPPA.
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.
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.
The applicant made a request to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records about her employment with PHSA. PHSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that PHSA correctly applied ss. 14 and 22(1). As a result, it was unnecessary to consider s. 13.
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.
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General related to the estimated costs for implementing the Community Safety Act. The Ministry provided access to some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 16 (intergovernmental relations) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse access in part under ss. 13(1) and 14, but not under s. 16, and that it was not required to refuse access under s. 12(1), except for two portions to which ss. 12(1), 13(1) and 16 are yet to be determined. The adjudicator rejected the applicant’s argument that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) applies. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose to the applicant the information that it is not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 12(1), 13(1), 14, and 16(1)(a)(ii). The adjudicator also ordered the Ministry, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce two pages of the records in dispute to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for the purposes of adjudicating the other exceptions.
An applicant requested copies of records regarding polling relating to the Covid-19 pandemic that a contracted service provider had created for the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry disclosed records but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations). The adjudicator found that the Ministry correctly applied s. 13(1) to the information.
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 applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the application and appointment of a specific BC Supreme Court master. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under multiple exceptions to access. In some cases, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information in the responsive records under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. Given their finding on s. 22(1), the adjudicator did not need to consider whether s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) also applied to the same information. The Ministry was ordered to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under FIPPA. The Ministry also argued, and the adjudicator confirmed, that some of the responsive records fell outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(3)(c); therefore, the applicant had no right to access those records under FIPPA.
An applicant made a request 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).
An applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report prepared for the City of Revelstoke (City). The investigation report was partially about the applicant. The City provided the applicant with a copy of the report, but withheld some information in it under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 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 City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
An applicant requested copies of correspondence between the City of Kelowna (City), the Kelowna detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the provincial government’s Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch. The City disclosed records but withheld some information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and s. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement). The adjudicator found that the City correctly applied s. 13(1) to most but not all of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the information to which s. 13(1) did not apply. As the City had applied s. 13(1) correctly to all of the information to which it also applied s. 15(1), the adjudicator made no finding with respect to s. 15(1).
An applicant requested records related to a 2015 meeting attended by a representative of Destination British Columbia (DBC). DBC released the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 21(2) (information gathered for determining tax liability or collecting a tax), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 21(2). The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Finally, the adjudicator confirmed DBC’s decision to withhold a small amount of information under s. 13(1).
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 the Ministry of Finance (Ministry) provide access to records about its property transfer tax assessment and the related appeal. The Ministry provided records, withholding some information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that s. 13 applies to some of the information in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under s. 13.
A journalist requested reviews, reports, audits and analyses concerning COVID-19 outbreaks at two health care facilities of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA). VCHA disclosed some records but withheld information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a system), s. 17(1) (financial harm to the public body) 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 VCHA to disclose the remainder. He found that ss. 15(1)(l) and 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and ordered VCHA to disclose it.
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.
An applicant requested the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) give him access to his registrant file. The College refused access to some of the records and parts of records under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and pursuant to s. 26.2 of the Health Professions Act (HPA). The adjudicator finds that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 26.2 of the HPA apply to most of the information in dispute. The adjudicator orders the College to give the applicant access to the information to which those provisions do not apply.
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 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.
An employee made two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA). One was for a report of an investigation into a respectful workplace complaint and associated records. The other was for her personal information relating to job competitions. VIHA withheld some of the information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy of a third party). The adjudicator found that VIHA had correctly applied s. 13(1) to some of the information. The adjudicator ordered VIHA to disclose the rest of the information to which it applied s. 13(1). The adjudicator confirmed VIHA’s decision to apply s. 22(1).
An applicant requested the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) provide access to records about birth alerts. The Ministry refused to disclose some information in the records under ss. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and disputed the applicant’s claim that disclosure was required in the public interest under s. 25(1)(b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to refuse access under s. 14 and it was not necessary to decide if s. 13(1) also applied to the same information. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry, pursuant to s. 44(1), to provide the disputed information so the adjudicator could decide if s. 25(1)(b) applied.
An applicant requested access to records, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the City of North Vancouver (City). The City provided the applicant with access to records but withheld some parts of the records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information under s. 13(1) and found that the City was required to refuse the applicant access to some but not all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the remainder to the applicant.
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to certain records relating to its preliminary application to subdivide a property. The District of North Vancouver (District) provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the District was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations).
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.
A journalist requested records about driving in BC with a foreign driver’s licence from China. The Office of the Premier provided records, withholding some information under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and 16 (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that the Office of the Premier was authorized to refuse to disclose the disputed information under ss. 13 and 16(1)(a)(iv) of FIPPA.
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry). The Ministry withheld some information under s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) and s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute under those exceptions. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the information in dispute considered under that exception.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the British Columbia Investment Management
Corporation (BCI) for copies of 2014-2015 BCI employee engagement and satisfaction
survey reports, including results and analysis. BCI withheld the responsive records and
information on the basis of common law case-by-case privilege and ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body),
21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a
third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that Division 2 of
Part 2 of FIPPA is a complete code of exceptions to disclosure abrogating case-by-case
privilege, so BCI was not entitled to rely on that privilege as an access exception. The
adjudicator then determined that BCI was authorized to withhold most of the disputed
information under s. 13(1), but that it was not authorized or required to withhold the
balance of the information under the other exceptions BCI applied.
The applicant requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). In response, the Ministry provided 8,936 pages of responsive records, withholding some information under a number of different exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under ss. 13(1), and 14 and some of the information under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) and 18(a). The Ministry was required to withhold some information in dispute under ss. 12(1) and 22(1). However, the Ministry was required to disclose some of the information it withheld under ss. 12(1), 16(1)(a)(iii), 18(a) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 16(1)(c) did not apply to the information considered under that section. The Ministry also withheld some information under common law settlement privilege, but did not provide the records in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to produce the records for the purpose of adjudicating settlement privilege. The applicant also complained that the Ministry did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for text messages and deleted emails.
An applicant requested 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.
The College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (College) requested the commissioner exercise their discretion, under s. 56 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to not conduct an inquiry regarding the College’s decision to refuse an applicant partial access to the requested record. The College argued an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) applied to the withheld information. The adjudicator determined that it was not plain and obvious the College was authorized to withheld the information at issue under s. 13(1). Therefore, the adjudicator dismissed the College’s s. 56 application and directed the matter to an inquiry.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the 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.
The applicant requested access to her own personal information from the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC) relating to a complaint that she had made against a member of the CPABC. The CPABC
disclosed some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 15 (harm to law enforcement) and
22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (FIPPA). The CPABC also withheld all of the information under s. 69 of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act (CPAA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(7) of
FIPPA overrides s. 69 of the CPAA. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(3), 13(1) and 15 of FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all
of the information. The adjudicator ordered the CPABC to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.
The applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
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.
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. 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(1).
An applicant requested from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) records containing their personal information. VicPD 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 VicPD had correctly applied the exceptions to disclosure and confirmed its decision to withhold the information at issue.
The BC Official Opposition Caucus (applicant) requested a copy of the binders used for the committee stage of Bill 44-2018, Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Heath Tax) Act, 2018 (Bill 44) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) disclosed some of the information but withheld other information under s. 13(1) of FIPPA (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applies to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) does not apply to other withheld information and ordered the Ministry to disclose this information to the applicant.
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.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a copy of an audit conducted by the Fraser Health Authority. The audit focused on several companies that the Fraser Health Authority contracted to provide home care support services. Fraser Health Authority refused to disclose all of the information in the record under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and parts of the record under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 17(1) (harm to
a public body’s financial or economic interests) of FIPPA. The applicant claimed the record should be disclosed under s. 25(1)(b) since the disclosure is clearly in the public interest. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to refuse access to the record
under s. 14 and concluded s. 25(1)(b) did not apply in the circumstances. The
adjudicator did not find it necessary to also consider whether the Ministry was authorized to withhold information in the record under ss. 13(1) and 17(1).
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).
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo), the Evergreen Line and the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) provided partial access to the records by withholding information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1)(a) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (disclosure harmful to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 12(1), 14 and 22(1), but was not authorized or required to withhold the remaining information in dispute.
An applicant requested records from the City of Vancouver (City) under the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) related to three “rezoning
enquiries” covering the period from April 2016 to January 2019. The City disclosed records, severing information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 15(1)(l)
(harm to security of property or system), 17(1) (harm to economic interests of public
body) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The applicant disputed
that severing and also complained that the City interpreted his request too narrowly and
did not conduct an adequate search for the responsive records. The adjudicator found
that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some information. The adjudicator also found that
s. 13(1) did not apply to other information and ordered the City to disclose it. It was not
necessary to consider s. 13(1) for some information or to consider ss. 17(1) and 15(1)(l) at all. Finally, the adjudicator found that the City complied with its duty under s. 6(1) to
interpret the request and conduct an adequate search.
The applicant requested a variety of information from Community Living
British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld
other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA).
This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to
ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client
privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no
disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken
together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or
required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board (Board) for records relating to an investigation into the conduct of a former chief of the Victoria Police Department. The Board provided the applicant with responsive records severed under ss. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of FIPPA), 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA, as well as common law settlement privilege. The applicant withdrew his request for review of the records and information withheld under ss. 12(3)(b), 15(1)(l) and 22(1). The adjudicator confirmed the Board’s decision under s. 3(1)(c), determined that the Board was authorized to refuse to disclose some but not all of the information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 14, and found it unnecessary to consider settlement privilege.
The public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file
under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to
public body’s financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply because the records had been in existence for 10 or more years, so s. 13(3) was engaged. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision, in part, to refuse access under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1) and ordered the public body to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
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.
An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal information. The public body refused access to information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that ss. 13,14 and 22 applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 17 did not. The adjudicator ordered the public body to disclose a small amount of information to the applicant.
An applicant made seven requests to five public bodies for access to records relating to an identified mining project. The public bodies withheld information in the records under a number of exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the public bodies applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the public bodies were authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(1)(cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a system), 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party
personal privacy). However, the adjudicator found that some of the withheld information
did not fall within the claimed exceptions, and ordered the public bodies to disclose that information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC) for access to records relating to two of his worker’s compensation claims. WorkSafeBC refused to disclose the disputed information under s. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that some, but not all, of the withheld information was advice or recommendations under s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that s. 13(2) did not apply to the advice or recommendations and, therefore, WorkSafeBC properly withheld that information under s. 13(1).
The applicant requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
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.
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 made a request to the Town of Gibsons (Town) for access to records relating to the Town’s decision to issue development permits to a company. The Town refused to disclose the records and information in dispute under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to most, but not all, of the disputed information. The adjudicator also found that the Town was not authorized to refuse to disclose some of the disputed information because it is information similar to an environmental impact statement under s. 13(2)(f).
An applicant requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (College). The College withheld information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the College applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the College was required to withhold some information under ss. 13 and 14, but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13, 14 and 22 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(5) was not applicable since a third party did not confidentially supply any information about the applicant. However, the adjudicator ordered the College to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient explanation and evidence that the College exercised its discretion on proper grounds and considered all relevant factors.
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.
An applicant requested information related to a specific motor vehicle accident claim from ICBC. ICBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several exceptions to access in FIPPA. At inquiry, the adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision to apply these FIPPA exceptions to most of the information in dispute and ordered ICBC to disclose the rest to the applicant.
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).
An applicant requested access to records related to meetings between the Ministry of Health and representatives of pharmaceutical companies. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body or government) applied to some of the information. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to other information and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the applicant.
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 applicant requested access to records related to the Sunshine Coast Tourism Society’s application for the implementation of the municipal and regional district tax in two regional districts. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) withheld information in the records under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). For some of the records, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14 (solicitor client privilege), but ordered it to disclose the remaining information withheld under these sections to the applicant. The adjudicator also found the Ministry was not authorized or required to withhold information under ss. 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations) or 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy).
Two applicants requested access to records related to themselves and a particular property. The City withheld information in the records on the basis that s. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13(1) and 14 only applied to some of the withheld information and ordered the City to disclose the remainder to the applicants. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision to withhold information under s. 22(1).
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.
An employee of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA) requested access to emails which mention his name. VCHA disclosed emails which the employee had received or sent or on which he had been copied. It withheld other emails under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that s. 13(1) also did not apply to some of the information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the rest of the information and confirmed VCHA’s decision to withhold this information.
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 access to the Burrard Station East Entrance
Concept Design Report. TransLink refused to disclose parts of the record on the basis of
ss. 13(1), 17(1) and 15(1)(l) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The adjudicator found that TransLink was not authorized to withhold information in
dispute under ss. 13(1) and 17(1) but was authorized under s. 15(1)(l) to withhold some of the information in dispute.
An employee requested his personnel file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The City of Surrey (City) disclosed many records but also withheld information related to its investigation of his off-duty conduct under several exceptions in FIPPA: ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations); 15(1) (harm to law enforcement); 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations); 17(1) (harm to public body?s financial or economic interests); 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety); and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 16(1)(b) applied to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that ss. 15(1)(a) and (d), 17(1), 19(1)(a) and (b) and 22(1) did not apply to the remaining withheld information and ordered that the City disclose this information to the employee.
An applicant 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.
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.
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).
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.
An interest group requested access to records regarding the Ministry of
Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development’s Wolf Management
Plan. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to a small amount of
information but that ss. 15(1)(f), 16(1)(a)(iii) and 19(1)(a) do not apply to other
information (principally names and email addresses of Ministry employees) and ordered
the Ministry to disclose this information to the applicant.
The applicant requested records that relate to the City of Vancouver’s decision to discipline the applicant at work. The City of Vancouver refused access to portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal advice or recommendations under s. 13 and that it would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the City is authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under s.13. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 applies to some of the information but that that the City is required to disclose the remaining information.
A physician requested records of an assessment of his medical practice conducted by the College’s Physician Practice Enhancement Program. The College refused the applicant access to the records under s. 26.2(1) (quality assurance committee records) of the Health Professions Act. It also refused to disclose the records under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the College was not required or authorized by any of those provisions to refuse to disclose the records to the applicant. The College was ordered to disclose the records to the applicant.
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested records related to communications strategies regarding the Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI). The University of British Columbia (UBC) disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed UBC’s decision regarding s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered UBC to disclose other information to which s. 22(1) does not apply.
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 records from the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC). Specifically, he wanted information about the person he had nominated for a CPABC fellowship. CPABC refused to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 13 applied and confirmed CPABC’s decision to refuse to disclose the information under that exception. There was no need to make a decision regarding s. 22.
The applicant requested a list describing the subject matters of briefing notes. The Ministry refused to disclose some descriptions under ss. 3(1)(h) (outside scope of Act), 12 (cabinet confidences), 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision regarding ss. 3(1)(h) and 14. She also confirmed its decision regarding s. 13(1), with the exception of eight of the descriptions. She found that s. 16(1)(b) applied to only five of the eight, and the other three must be disclosed to the applicant. There was no need to consider ss. 12 or 22.
The applicant requested 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.
An applicant requested records about a crane investigation. WorkSafeBC disclosed some information, but it withheld other information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13 and 14 apply to some of the withheld information.
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 VIHA employee requested access to all information about her. VIHA provided records but refused to disclose some information under ss. 3(1)(d) (outside scope of Act), 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that s. 3(1)(d) did not apply and VIHA was required to disclose that information to the applicant. The adjudicator confirmed VIHA’s ss. 13, 14 and 22 decisions regarding some of the information. However, the adjudicator found that VIHA was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose other information under those exceptions and ordered VIHA to disclose it to the applicant.
A journalist requested records related to the business case for the replacement of the Massey Tunnel with a bridge. The Ministry of Finance disclosed the responsive records in severed form. It argued at the inquiry that ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) and 13(1) (advice or recommendations) apply to the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applies to all of the withheld information and ordered the Ministry to withhold it. It was not necessary to consider s. 12(1).
The Ministry disclosed a report in severed form, withholding some information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to most of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that s. 13(2)(a) (factual material), s. 13(2)(g) (final report) and s. 13(2)(m) (information cited publicly) did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information to which s. 13(1) does not apply.
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
The applicant 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 asked the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for records relating to an avalanche program. The Ministry withheld some of the information on the basis that it revealed policy advice or recommendations under s. 13, that the information was privileged under s. 14, and that its disclosure would be harmful to the government’s financial or economic interests under s. 17 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse access to information under ss. 13 and 14, but not under s. 17.
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.
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 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.
A journalist requested records related to the City of Vancouver’s closed circuit television system. The City refused to disclose some of the requested information under ss. 13, 14, 15, 17 and 19. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and other information under s. 14 (legal advice). However, the adjudicator found that the City had not established that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the harms in s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), s. 17 (harm to the City’s financial or economic interests) or s. 19 (harm to public safety). In addition, the adjudicator ordered the City to process, under Part 2, Division 2 of FIPPA, the information that it incorrectly withheld from the records as being not responsive, repeats and examples.
The applicant requested information about herself held by BC Ferries, particularly information related to an incident that occurred during her work as an equipment operator. BC Ferries withheld information claiming ss. 13, 15, 19 and 22 of FIPPA exemptions. With the exception of its reliance on s. 13 and a few pages that must be disclosed, BC Ferries properly applied disclosure exemptions to the record.
The applicant made two separate requests for records. The first request was for a copy of a report of an organizational review of the College. The adjudicator found that the College was not justified in withholding information from the report under ss. 12(3)(b) and 13(1) of FIPPA. However, with two small exceptions, the adjudicator found that disclosure of the personal information contained in the report would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA and it may not be disclosed. The applicant’s second request was for records related to the issue of assessing substantially equivalent qualifications of College registrants, and the adjudicator found that the refusal to disclose them was authorized under s. 13(1) of FIPPA.
A journalist requested records related to the Provincial Capital Commission’s request for proposals to lease the CPR Steamship Terminal Building in Victoria’s inner harbour. Information was withheld under ss. 13(1), 15(1)(l), 21(1) and 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the majority of the information withheld under s. 13(1) was not advice and recommendations, so it must be disclosed. Regarding s. 15(1)(l), the public body failed to establish the disclosure of architectural drawings could reasonably be expected to harm the building’s security, so they must be disclosed. Regarding s. 21(1), there was no evidence of harm that would result from disclosure of the withheld financial information, and the adjudicator directed that it be provided to the applicant. Finally, the adjudicator ordered disclosure of some of the information that had been withheld under s. 22(1) because it was either not personal information or because disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy.
A journalist requested records relating to medications for the treatment of Adult Macular Degeneration. The Ministries withheld portions of the requested information under ss. 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 of FIPPA. The Assistant Commissioner ordered the public bodies to disclose parts of the withheld information, authorized the public bodies to withhold parts of the withheld information under s. 13, 14, 16, and 17 of FIPPA, and required the public bodies to refuse to disclose parts of the withheld information under ss. 21 and 22 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested a copy of a violence risk assessment report which examined his interactions with a co-worker. The adjudicator found that BCRTC is authorized to withhold portions of the report on the basis that it reveals advice and recommendations under s. 13(1). However, the adjudicator found that the evidence does not support BCRTC’s claim that disclosure of the remainder of the information could reasonably be expected to threaten the safety or mental or physical health of others under s. 19(1)(a).
An architect requested documents created by the City of Vancouver relating to the address of a potential laneway house development in the City. The City withheld portions of seven emails under s. 13(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of one email because it had already been disclosed, and portions of the other six emails to which s. 13(1) did not apply. The City was authorized to withhold the remaining portions of the six emails under s. 13(1) because they contained advice and recommendations.
A journalist requested executive summaries of internal audit reports. The PHSA withheld five audit summaries in their entirety under ss. 12(3)(b) and 13(1) of FIPPA. The PHSA also applied s. 17(1) of FIPPA to three of the five audit summaries. The adjudicator found that disclosure would not reveal the substance of deliberations of a meeting of the Board of Directors under s. 12(3)(b), because the Board did not have the statutory authority to hold the meetings in the absence of the public. The adjudicator also found that disclosure could not be reasonably expected to cause the PHSA to suffer financial harm under s. 17(1). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1)(2)(g) applied to two of the audit summaries, as they were final audits of efficiency or performance of PHSA, or one of its programs or policies. Therefore, s. 13(1) did not apply to those two audit summaries. Section 13(1) did apply to advice and recommendations within the other three audit summaries, but not to those records in their entirety. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of parts of the three audit summaries and the other two audit summaries in their entirety.
CUPE requested records related to a labour dispute between BC Paramedics and the Emergency and Health Services Commission. The Commission disclosed some records but withheld other information under ss. 12, 13, 14 and 22 of FIPPA. The A/Senior Adjudicator found the records for which the Commission claimed s. 14 were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Commission was also required to refuse to disclose the records for which it claimed s. 22 because disclosure of that information would be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of certain employees. While the A/Senior Adjudicator determined that the Commission had properly applied ss. 12 and 13 to a number of records, he ordered the Commission to disclose other withheld information because it did not reveal the substance of cabinet deliberations nor did it reveal recommendations or advice by or for a public body.
A journalist requested a Progress Report on a program designed to help problem gamblers. The adjudicator ordered the Progress Report disclosed. Virtually nothing in the Report constituted recommendations or advice as BCLC argued. Instead, what it contained was a narrative, punctuated by charts and tables that describe the answers to questions posed by the report’s authors. The Report was also found to be a “statistical survey” under s. 13(2)(b) and therefore the few passages containing advice or recommendations were ordered disclosed. Further, the adjudicator rejected as speculative claims that the disclosure of the Report could reasonably be expected to deny BCLC a fair trial.
A journalist requested cost estimates for establishing a provincial police force. The Ministry withheld portions of the records under s. 13 on the grounds they revealed advice or recommendations. The adjudicator found the disputed information constituted advice as previous orders and case law have interpreted the term. Therefore, the Ministry was authorized to withhold it.
The applicant requested all records related to the permit application of Clayoquot Wilderness Resorts to develop horseriding trails and campsites in Strathcona Park. The Ministry was authorized to withhold all records for which it claimed solicitor-client privilege and most of the records that it withheld under s. 13(1) of FIPPA. The Ministry was required to disclose information from one record because it was a management directive and not a recommendation or advice under s. 13(1).
FIPA requested records leading to and underlying Cabinet decisions regarding the restructuring of BC Ferries. The Premier?s Office disclosed a number of records, severing information under ss. 12(1) and 13(1). The Premier?s Office is found to have applied these exceptions properly.
The applicant requested access to records related to the 1989 death of a named individual. The VPD initially withheld all records under s. 22(3)(b). It later added other exceptions and disclosed a few pages. The VPD are required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1).
The Vancouver Sun requested any reports on the long term viability of BC Place. PavCo’s decision to apply s. 13(1) to information in a 2006 report on infrastructure improvements is confirmed.
FIPA requested access to stakeholders’ comments on proposed FIPPA amendments. Ministry disclosed some records in full where stakeholders had no concerns with disclosure and disclosed other records in severed form where stakeholders did have such concerns. It applied s. 13(1) to the withheld portions saying the comments were advice or recommendations to government on proposed courses of action. Section 13(1) found to apply to most of withheld information. Ministry found not to have exercised discretion properly and ordered to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1).
The applicant sought briefing materials for the Premier for Question Period during a specified legislative session. Section 13(1) authorizes the Office of the Premier to withhold the information as advice to the Premier.
The applicant, a former employee of BC Hydro, requested records relating to himself, a third party and a private company the two had previously shared an interest in. BC Hydro released some records but withheld some in whole or part. BC Hydro was required to disclose some of the records. BC Hydro was also authorized to withhold some of the records under ss. 13(1) and 14 and was required to withhold others under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.
The applicant, a former employee of the Ministry, requested records relating to a dispute between himself and his former employer about his appointment to the council of a self-governing professional body. The Ministry released a number of records, some of which it severed because, the Ministry argued, they revealed advice or recommendations under s. 13(1) of FIPPA. The Ministry is authorized to withhold some of the information under s. 13(1) and ordered to disclose other information to which s. 13(1) does not apply.
The applicant, a former employee of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, requested records relating to a dispute between himself and his former employer about his appointment to the council of a self-governing professional body. The Ministry of Community Services released a number of records, some of which it severed because, it argued, they revealed advice or recommendations under s. 13(1) of FIPPA. The Ministry of Community Services is authorized to withhold some of the information under s. 13(1) and ordered to disclose other information to which s. 13(1) does not apply.
The applicant, an employee of the Ministry, requested access to his personal records. The Ministry released some records and refused access to others, relying on s. 13(1). The records related to advice provided to the Ministry by the Public Service Agency regarding the applicant’s request for accommodation. The applicant argued that the information was not advice for the purposes of s. 13(1) or, alternatively, that it fell within the exceptions to s. 13(1) set out in ss. 13(2)(a), 13(2)(d) or 13(2)(n). The Ministry is ordered to release some information which relates only to a request for advice. The Ministry is entitled to refuse access to the remaining information under s. 13(1). Because the Ministry did not demonstrate that it had exercised its discretion in refusing access under s. 13(1) taking into account all relevant considerations, it is required to reconsider its decision in that regard.
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Public body disclosed some records and withheld and severed others under ss. 12(1), 13(1), 14, 16, 17 and 22. Public body required to withhold information under s. 12(1) and authorized to withhold information under s. 13(1). With some exceptions, public body authorized to withhold information under s. 14. Public body ordered to disclose some information that it withheld under s. 14 and the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld and severed others under ss. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22. Ministry required to withhold information under s. 12(1) and authorized to withhold information under s. 13(1) and s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information that it withheld under s. 17 and the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Ministry also ordered to conduct another search for responsive records.
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld information and records under ss. 12(1), 13(1), 14, 16(1), 17(1) and 22(1). Ministry found to have properly withheld information under ss. 12(1) and 13(1) and, with some exceptions, s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information it withheld under s. 16(1) and s. 14.
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld information and records under ss. 12, 13, 14, 17, 21 and 22. Ministry found to have properly withheld information under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) and some information it withheld under s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information it withheld under ss. 14 and 21(1).
The applicant requested access to records related to his noise complaint about his neighbour. The District refused the applicant full or partial access to the records on the basis of ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), and 22(1) of FIPPA. The District is authorized by s. 13(1) of FIPPA to refuse the applicant access to a memorandum containing advice and recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The District is not authorized by s. 12(3)(b) to refuse the applicant access to the minutes of an in camera meeting because the evidence does not establish that the meeting was properly held in camera. The District is required to refuse the applicant access to information in the remaining records which is strictly that of the third party, but must not refuse access to information which is not personal information or is the applicant’s own personal information.
The applicant and the provincial government participated in energy regulation hearings in the United States and Canada about an energy project the applicant had proposed. The applicant made an access request to the Ministry for records about the proposed energy project when the US hearings, but not the Canadian hearings, had concluded. The Ministry was slow in responding to the access request, did not comply with conditions of a time extension this Office granted the Ministry under s. 10(1)(c), and failed to respond in time, effectively taking an unsanctioned time extension. The Ministry eventually released three disclosure packages over six months, from which it withheld some information under various of the Act’s exceptions. The Ministry was authorized to refuse to give access to the information that it withheld under s. 13(1) or s. 14, but it is ordered under s. 58(3)(c) to refund 50% of the fees charged to the applicant.
The applicant requested access to records relating to a public report on offshore oil and gas exploration prepared for the Minister of Energy and Mines by a panel of three scientific experts. For records in the possession of the Ministry, s. 12(1) applied to a small amount of information, ss. 13(1) and 16(1) applied to some other information and s. 25(1) did not apply. Some information in these records was also incorrectly withheld as not responsive to request but may be withheld under ss. 13(1) and 16(1). Records in the possession of panel members or the panel secretariat are under the control of the Ministry and subject to an access request under the Act.
The applicant made a request for records relating to a development application considered by the City of Vancouver. The City released all responsive records but one. This record was withheld under s. 13(1). The record was found to be advice and recommendations and was properly withheld after the City’s appropriate exercise of its discretion.
Applicant sought access to minutes of in camera Inquiry Committee meetings and listing of actions related to a complaint filed against him. Committee withheld entirety of responsive records under ss. 3(1)(b), 3(1)(h), 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22. Records withheld under s. 3(1)(b) do not meet required criteria. Committee entitled to withhold only substance of deliberations under s. 12(3)(b). Sections 3(1)(h), 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22 found not to apply. Public body ordered to re-consider its decision to withhold under s. 12(3)(b).
The applicant requested records detailing the operations of ICBC’s Glass Express program, including records relating to suspensions of glass vendors’ rights under the program. ICBC properly applied ss. 14 and 22(1) and, in some places, s. 13(1). Some information withheld under s. 13(1) is ordered disclosed. Information withheld under s. 17(1) is ordered disclosed.
Applicant requested records about himself within the PHSA’s communications department. The PHSA applied ss. 14 and 22 properly, but is ordered to reconsider most information it withheld under s. 13(1). PHSA properly characterized certain information as non-responsive to request.
Applicant requested records related to himself. PHSA disclosed large number of records and withheld others under ss. 12(3), 13(1), 14 and 22. Applicant disputed decision to withhold information and also complained about delay in PHSA’s response and records search. PHSA found to have applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases also ss. 13(1) and 22. PHSA found not to have complied with its duties under s. 6(1) and ordered to search again.
Applicant requested records related to his employment and promotion within UBC. UBC disclosed many records, withheld other records and information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22 and said other records were not relevant to the request. Applicant questioned search adequacy and objected to withholding of information. UBC applied s. 14 properly and, with some exceptions, also ss. 13(1) and 22. UBC searched adequately for responsive records, with one minor exception, for which it was ordered to search again. UBC ordered to disclose some information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22 and to provide a response on some records found to be relevant to request.
A corporation owned and controlled by the Province of British Columbia was a third party and not a public body under the Act. The applicant local government made an access request to the Ministry for a report prepared by business and financial consultants for that corporation, respecting its investment in a forest products company. The Ministry is not authorized to refuse access under s. 13(1) because information was not developed by or for a public body or minister, but the Ministry is required to refuse access under s. 21(1).
Applicant requested review of School District’s decision under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain records. Third-party teacher requested review of School District’s decision to disclose investigator’s report and hearing records in severed form. School District found to have applied s. 8(2)(b) properly and to have correctly decided to sever and disclose report and hearing records.
Applicant requested records related to her academic appeal. UBC provided records,
withholding other records and information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13(1), 14 and 22. UBC found to have
applied ss. 3(1)(b), and 14 properly and, with one exception, s. 22 as well. UBC ordered to
disclose some personal information related to applicant. Section 13(1) found not to apply in all
cases and UBC ordered to disclose draft letters.
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry severed some information.
Applicant requested review of response, saying certain records missing. Ministry found to
have complied with s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and to have applied ss. 13(1) and 22
properly to some information.
The applicant sought access to various Law Society records related to complaints he
had made about various lawyers. Order 02-01 and Order No. 260-1998 addressed many of the
records in dispute here and issue estoppel is found to apply to information dealt with in those
decisions. In the case of some but not all of the information in other records, the Law Society is
authorized to refuse to disclose information subject to s. 14 and is required to refuse to disclose
third-party personal information protected by s. 22.
The applicant requested records relating to BC Hydro’s commitment to offset 50% of
increased greenhouse gas emissions from new Vancouver Island gas-fired electricity generating
plants. Sections 13 and 17 of the Act authorize BC Hydro to refuse to disclose information in the
records.
The applicant complained to the College about the conduct of a College member.
The College disclosed 140 records from its complaint file, but refused to disclose, in their
entirety, 19 records. The College has failed to establish that s. 3(1)(b), s. 12(3)(b) or s. 15(2)(b)
apply. It is authorized to refuse disclosure of some information under ss. 13(1) and 14 and is
required to refuse disclosure by s. 22(3)(d) and (g). Section 22(1) does not require the College to
refuse the applicant access to her own personal information.
Section 12(3)(b) authorizes the City to refuse to disclose two records. Sections 13(1)
and 14 authorize the City to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information withheld
under those sections. Section 17(1) does not authorize the City to refuse to disclose information.
The applicant in this case is the daughter of a woman whose attempt to revisit
a mediated settlement of her previous access request to SFU was dealt with in Order 01-16. In
Order 01-16, it was held that SFU need not process the woman’s new access request. The evidence
establishes that the daughter’s access request, made 10 days after Order 01-16 was issued, was
made on her mother’s behalf, as an attempt to circumvent Order 01-16. This is an abuse of process
and will not be allowed. The principle of res judicata also applies. SFU’s decision on the merits
of the daughter’s access request, as an arm’s-length applicant, is upheld.
The applicant requested records related to the government’s decision to delay implementation of the WCB’s proposed regulation on smoking in the workplace. His request cited s. 25(1) as possibly requiring disclosure in the public interest. Section 25(1) does not require either public body to disclose information in the public interest. The Premier’s Office is required to withhold information under s. 12(1) and the Ministry is authorized to withhold information under ss. 13 and 14. Each of them must, however, disclose some of the information withheld under s. 13(1) and the Premier’s Office must disclose some withheld under s. 12(1).
ICBC is authorized by s. 13(1) to withhold some of the information it severed from a consultant’s report on distance-based insurance pricing, but much of the withheld portion of the report is “factual material” under s. 13(2)(a) and must be released.
Applicant requested records related to calculation of benefits expected after WCB decision. WCB refused disclosure of most information, under ss. 13, 14, 17 and 22. Sections 14 and 17 found not to apply, as WCB has not established that solicitor client privilege applies nor that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm its financial interests. Section 13(1) found not to apply, except for one item, as records do not contain advice or recommendations. Because s. 22(4)(e) applied to information the WCB had withheld under s. 22, that information must be disclosed except for one item to which section 22(3)(g) applies. No waiver of privilege found.
An auto body shop applied for records in the custody of ICBC. The records consisted of internal e-mails and documents relating to the ongoing relationship between the shop and ICBC. ICBC had denied the shop accreditation, resulting in an appeal and revocation of the shop’s vendor number. ICBC did not succeed completely on its application of ss. 13 and 17 to a vast number of records. ICBC is required to demonstrate the information it withheld under s. 13 was created for the purpose of advising or recommending a specific course of action or range of actions or that it so advises or recommends. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interest from disclosure of specific information. ICBC succeeded on its application of s. 14 to records created for the dominant purpose of preparing for, advising on or conducting litigation. ICBC succeeded in its application of s. 15 to certain investigation records. The Material Damage Specialist Fraud Unit’s activities qualified as law enforcement, certain records were part of an actual investigation and ICBC demonstrated a reasonable expectation of harm. ICBC was able to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that disclosure of certain identities could threaten certain individuals’ safety or mental or physical health. Thus s. 19 was accepted for certain identifying information. ICBC properly applied s. 22 to certain third party personal information, but it was not properly applied to ICBC employee names and identities.
BC Hydro withheld information from the OPEIU respecting a proposed split of BC Hydro’s existing pension plan into two plans. BC Hydro is not entitled to withhold information under s. 13(1), as the information did not qualify as, or implicitly reveal, advice or recommendations. BC Hydro authorized to withhold information it withheld under s. 17(1), since its disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm BC Hydro’s financial interests.
Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1), as information does not consist of advice or recommendations. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld under that section, but s. 22(1) applies, in part on the basis of s. 22(3)(a), to some of the same information. Section 22(3)(d) does not apply to information about ministry employees’ work-related actions, so s. 22(1) does not apply to that information. Ministry found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
Applicant not entitled to portions of agendas, minutes and reports of meetings which disclose substance of Cabinet deliberations or advice or recommendations to a public body. Public body required under s. 13(2)(a) to disclose small amounts of factual material that it had withheld under s. 13(1).
Applicant sought public body’s draft memorandum to Crown counsel setting out Criminal Justice Branch policy on the laying of a specific kind of criminal charge. Only some information could properly be withheld as advice or recommendations or information used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but all information in record was protected by solicitor client privilege. Public interest override not triggered.
Applicant had complained to College about a physician’s conduct. After College decided not to institute discipline proceedings, applicant sought records of third party expert opinions obtained by College in deciding how to proceed. College not authorized to withhold information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), 15(1)(a) or (c). College not authorized to withhold most information under s. 14. Commissioner has jurisdiction to determine whether privilege has been waived. If s. 14 did apply, no waiver of privilege by College. No other kind of privilege applied to records. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act overrides Medical Practitioners Act. Personal information of third party experts required to be withheld under s. 22(1).
Applicant made a series of requests for access to his personal information.
UBC disclosed large amounts of information, but withheld some third party personal
information, information subject to solicitor client privilege, and advice or
recommendations. UBC was authorized to withhold privileged information and some
advice or recommendations. UBC was required to withhold third party personal
information that would identify individuals who gave confidential evaluations of the
applicant, but UBC ordered to comply with s. 22(5) duty to provide the applicant with
summaries of those evaluations. UBC was found to have fulfilled its duty to assist the
applicant. No evidence of bias on the part of UBC employees handling the applicant’s
access requests at the same time as appeal processes involving the applicant.
WCB withheld records dealing with WCB policy on payment of interest to
employers when refunding to employers certain contribution overpayments. WCB
withheld information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 17(1). WCB authorized to withhold record
under first two sections, but not s. 17(1). No reasonable expectation of harm to WCB’s
financial or economic interests on basis information might be used by third parties in
litigation against WCB. Section 13(1) in any case found to protect information to which
WCB applied s. 17(1).
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).
The applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (the University) for access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to all communications mentioning him that were sent to or received by a named individual. The University provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the University was authorized to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and required to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the University to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
The applicant requested records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
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.
An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related
to an external investigation of the University’s treatment of the applicant. The University
disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator
determined that the University was authorized to withhold all the information withheld
under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some information withheld under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered the University to disclose that information.
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).
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.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
An applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) for records relating to herself and a particular College complaint investigation file. The College provided partial access, withholding information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14. The adjudicator also determined that the College is required or authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information that the College withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the implementation of medical assistance in dying practices and procedures by the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). FHA disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information under several exceptions in Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) applied to some, but not all, of the information FHA withheld. The adjudicator ordered FHA to disclose the information which was not covered by ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), or 22(1) of FIPPA.
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.
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 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 applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the application and appointment of a specific BC Supreme Court master. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under multiple exceptions to access. In some cases, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information in the responsive records under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. Given their finding on s. 22(1), the adjudicator did not need to consider whether s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) also applied to the same information. The Ministry was ordered to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under FIPPA. The Ministry also argued, and the adjudicator confirmed, that some of the responsive records fell outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(3)(c); therefore, the applicant had no right to access those records under FIPPA.
An applicant made a request 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 a copy of a workplace investigation report prepared for the City of Revelstoke (City). The investigation report was partially about the applicant. The City provided the applicant with a copy of the report, but withheld some information in it under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 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 City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
An applicant requested records related to a 2015 meeting attended by a representative of Destination British Columbia (DBC). DBC released the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 21(2) (information gathered for determining tax liability or collecting a tax), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 21(2). The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Finally, the adjudicator confirmed DBC’s decision to withhold a small amount of information under s. 13(1).
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.
An applicant requested the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) give him access to his registrant file. The College refused access to some of the records and parts of records under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and pursuant to s. 26.2 of the Health Professions Act (HPA). The adjudicator finds that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 26.2 of the HPA apply to most of the information in dispute. The adjudicator orders the College to give the applicant access to the information to which those provisions do not apply.
An employee made two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA). One was for a report of an investigation into a respectful workplace complaint and associated records. The other was for her personal information relating to job competitions. VIHA withheld some of the information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy of a third party). The adjudicator found that VIHA had correctly applied s. 13(1) to some of the information. The adjudicator ordered VIHA to disclose the rest of the information to which it applied s. 13(1). The adjudicator confirmed VIHA’s decision to apply s. 22(1).
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to certain records relating to its preliminary application to subdivide a property. The District of North Vancouver (District) provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the District was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations).
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.
A journalist requested records about driving in BC with a foreign driver’s licence from China. The Office of the Premier provided records, withholding some information under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and 16 (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that the Office of the Premier was authorized to refuse to disclose the disputed information under ss. 13 and 16(1)(a)(iv) of FIPPA.
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry). The Ministry withheld some information under s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) and s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute under those exceptions. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the information in dispute considered under that exception.
The College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (College) requested the commissioner exercise their discretion, under s. 56 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to not conduct an inquiry regarding the College’s decision to refuse an applicant partial access to the requested record. The College argued an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) applied to the withheld information. The adjudicator determined that it was not plain and obvious the College was authorized to withheld the information at issue under s. 13(1). Therefore, the adjudicator dismissed the College’s s. 56 application and directed the matter to an inquiry.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the 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.
The applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
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.
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. 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(1).
The BC Official Opposition Caucus (applicant) requested a copy of the binders used for the committee stage of Bill 44-2018, Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Heath Tax) Act, 2018 (Bill 44) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) disclosed some of the information but withheld other information under s. 13(1) of FIPPA (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applies to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) does not apply to other withheld information and ordered the Ministry to disclose this information to the applicant.
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 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 a variety of information from Community Living
British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld
other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA).
This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to
ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client
privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no
disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken
together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or
required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board (Board) for records relating to an investigation into the conduct of a former chief of the Victoria Police Department. The Board provided the applicant with responsive records severed under ss. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of FIPPA), 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA, as well as common law settlement privilege. The applicant withdrew his request for review of the records and information withheld under ss. 12(3)(b), 15(1)(l) and 22(1). The adjudicator confirmed the Board’s decision under s. 3(1)(c), determined that the Board was authorized to refuse to disclose some but not all of the information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 14, and found it unnecessary to consider settlement privilege.
The applicant 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.
An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal information. The public body refused access to information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that ss. 13,14 and 22 applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 17 did not. The adjudicator ordered the public body to disclose a small amount of information to the applicant.
An applicant made seven requests to five public bodies for access to records relating to an identified mining project. The public bodies withheld information in the records under a number of exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the public bodies applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the public bodies were authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(1)(cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a system), 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party
personal privacy). However, the adjudicator found that some of the withheld information
did not fall within the claimed exceptions, and ordered the public bodies to disclose that information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC) for access to records relating to two of his worker’s compensation claims. WorkSafeBC refused to disclose the disputed information under s. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that some, but not all, of the withheld information was advice or recommendations under s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that s. 13(2) did not apply to the advice or recommendations and, therefore, WorkSafeBC properly withheld that information under s. 13(1).
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.
An applicant requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (College). The College withheld information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the College applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the College was required to withhold some information under ss. 13 and 14, but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13, 14 and 22 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(5) was not applicable since a third party did not confidentially supply any information about the applicant. However, the adjudicator ordered the College to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient explanation and evidence that the College exercised its discretion on proper grounds and considered all relevant factors.
An applicant requested information related to a specific motor vehicle accident claim from ICBC. ICBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several exceptions to access in FIPPA. At inquiry, the adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision to apply these FIPPA exceptions to most of the information in dispute and ordered ICBC to disclose the rest to the applicant.
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 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.
An employee of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA) requested access to emails which mention his name. VCHA disclosed emails which the employee had received or sent or on which he had been copied. It withheld other emails under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that s. 13(1) also did not apply to some of the information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the rest of the information and confirmed VCHA’s decision to withhold this information.
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.
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.
An interest group requested access to records regarding the Ministry of
Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development’s Wolf Management
Plan. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to a small amount of
information but that ss. 15(1)(f), 16(1)(a)(iii) and 19(1)(a) do not apply to other
information (principally names and email addresses of Ministry employees) and ordered
the Ministry to disclose this information to the applicant.
The applicant requested records that relate to the City of Vancouver’s decision to discipline the applicant at work. The City of Vancouver refused access to portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal advice or recommendations under s. 13 and that it would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the City is authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under s.13. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 applies to some of the information but that that the City is required to disclose the remaining information.
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 records from the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC). Specifically, he wanted information about the person he had nominated for a CPABC fellowship. CPABC refused to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 13 applied and confirmed CPABC’s decision to refuse to disclose the information under that exception. There was no need to make a decision regarding s. 22.
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 VIHA employee requested access to all information about her. VIHA provided records but refused to disclose some information under ss. 3(1)(d) (outside scope of Act), 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that s. 3(1)(d) did not apply and VIHA was required to disclose that information to the applicant. The adjudicator confirmed VIHA’s ss. 13, 14 and 22 decisions regarding some of the information. However, the adjudicator found that VIHA was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose other information under those exceptions and ordered VIHA to disclose it to the applicant.
A journalist requested records related to the business case for the replacement of the Massey Tunnel with a bridge. The Ministry of Finance disclosed the responsive records in severed form. It argued at the inquiry that ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) and 13(1) (advice or recommendations) apply to the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applies to all of the withheld information and ordered the Ministry to withhold it. It was not necessary to consider s. 12(1).
The Ministry disclosed a report in severed form, withholding some information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to most of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that s. 13(2)(a) (factual material), s. 13(2)(g) (final report) and s. 13(2)(m) (information cited publicly) did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information to which s. 13(1) does not apply.
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
The applicant 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, 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.
The applicant requested information about herself held by BC Ferries, particularly information related to an incident that occurred during her work as an equipment operator. BC Ferries withheld information claiming ss. 13, 15, 19 and 22 of FIPPA exemptions. With the exception of its reliance on s. 13 and a few pages that must be disclosed, BC Ferries properly applied disclosure exemptions to the record.
An architect requested documents created by the City of Vancouver relating to the address of a potential laneway house development in the City. The City withheld portions of seven emails under s. 13(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of one email because it had already been disclosed, and portions of the other six emails to which s. 13(1) did not apply. The City was authorized to withhold the remaining portions of the six emails under s. 13(1) because they contained advice and recommendations.
The applicant sought briefing materials for the Premier for Question Period during a specified legislative session. Section 13(1) authorizes the Office of the Premier to withhold the information as advice to the Premier.
An auto body shop applied for records in the custody of ICBC. The records consisted of internal e-mails and documents relating to the ongoing relationship between the shop and ICBC. ICBC had denied the shop accreditation, resulting in an appeal and revocation of the shop’s vendor number. ICBC did not succeed completely on its application of ss. 13 and 17 to a vast number of records. ICBC is required to demonstrate the information it withheld under s. 13 was created for the purpose of advising or recommending a specific course of action or range of actions or that it so advises or recommends. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interest from disclosure of specific information. ICBC succeeded on its application of s. 14 to records created for the dominant purpose of preparing for, advising on or conducting litigation. ICBC succeeded in its application of s. 15 to certain investigation records. The Material Damage Specialist Fraud Unit’s activities qualified as law enforcement, certain records were part of an actual investigation and ICBC demonstrated a reasonable expectation of harm. ICBC was able to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that disclosure of certain identities could threaten certain individuals’ safety or mental or physical health. Thus s. 19 was accepted for certain identifying information. ICBC properly applied s. 22 to certain third party personal information, but it was not properly applied to ICBC employee names and identities.
WCB withheld records dealing with WCB policy on payment of interest to
employers when refunding to employers certain contribution overpayments. WCB
withheld information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 17(1). WCB authorized to withhold record
under first two sections, but not s. 17(1). No reasonable expectation of harm to WCB’s
financial or economic interests on basis information might be used by third parties in
litigation against WCB. Section 13(1) in any case found to protect information to which
WCB applied s. 17(1).
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.
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 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 access to records exchanged between Thompson Rivers University (TRU) and its legal counsel regarding an investigation into a workplace complaint a TRU faculty member made about the applicant. TRU disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 19 (disclosure harmful to individual health and safety), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 14 and required to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 22. As TRU’s withheld the same information under s. 19 and s. 22, the adjudicator did not consider s. 19.
An applicant requested 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.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for records related to the Ministry’s inspection of the applicant’s property. The Ministry responded to the applicant and withheld some records and information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information and records it withheld under s. 14 and required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 13(1).
An applicant requested records from Thompson Rivers University (TRU) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). TRU disclosed the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that TRU was authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under s. 14 and most of the information it withheld under s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that TRU was required to withhold most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered TRU to disclose to the applicant the information it was not authorized or required to withhold.
An applicant requested records from the Northern Health Authority (Authority) containing information about COVID-19 outbreaks at work camps. In response, the Authority released some information but withheld other information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party), and 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to all the information in dispute under that section and that s. 13 applied to some of the information in dispute under that section. The adjudicator also found the Authority was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 21(1). However, the adjudicator found that none of the sections of FIPPA relied on by the Authority applied to the remaining information in dispute and ordered the Authority to release that information to the applicant.
The City of Richmond requested the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to its communications with the Province of British Columbia related to the establishment of BCUC’s Inquiry into the Regulation of Municipal Energy Utilities. BCUC refused access under various sections of FIPPA. The adjudicator finds the records are not required to be disclosed under s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override); information was properly withheld under s. 13 (advice or recommendations); and that information was not properly withheld under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator orders BCUC to disclose the information it withheld under s. 14.
An applicant requested information from the City of Vancouver (City) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In response, the City provided over 500 pages of records but withheld some information under various exceptions to disclosure. Only s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) is at issue in this inquiry. The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to the information in dispute and confirmed the City’s decision to withhold it.
The City of Richmond requested the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the establishment of BCUC’s Inquiry into the Regulation of Municipal Energy Utilities. BCUC refused to disclose the records on the basis that they are excluded from the scope of FIPPA, some pages by s. 3(3)(e) of FIPPA and others by s. 61(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act (ATA). BCUC claimed, in the alternative, that ss. 13 and 14 of FIPPA apply to some of the information in the records. The adjudicator finds that some pages are excluded from FIPPA’s scope by s. 61(2)(a) of the ATA. The adjudicator also finds that: other pages are not excluded from FIPPA’s scope by s. 3(3)(e); are not required to be disclosed under s. 25(1)(b); and only some are properly withheld under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator orders BCUC to disclose the information to which ss.13 and 14 do not apply.
An applicant made a request to the Ministry of Education and Child Care (Ministry) for access to records related to the Ministry’s investigation into the applicant’s employment. The Ministry refused access to some information on the basis that FIPPA did not apply to this information or that it fell under one or more of FIPPA’s exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that s. 61(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act (personal note, communication or draft decision of a decision-maker) applied to some information and, therefore, that FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator also found that the Ministry had properly applied ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) to withhold some of the information in dispute. However, she found that the Ministry was not authorized to withhold any information under s. 13(1). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
An applicant requested the City of Burnaby (City) provide records respecting certain communications between the City and its lawyer. The City refused to disclose the responsive records on the basis that disclosure would reveal information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege under s. 14 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to withhold all the information in dispute under s. 14.
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 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.
An applicant requested that The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia (Association) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to certain records where he is mentioned or is otherwise identifiable. The Association withheld information in the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, the Association’s application of ss. 13 (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator also confirmed the association’s application of s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and found s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) did not apply to the remaining information. The adjudicator ordered the Association to disclose some information to the applicant.
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), a property owner (applicant) requested records related to building permits and a rezoning application for a specific property from the District of North Saanich (District). In response, the District provided responsive records but withheld a small amount of information from them under ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the District was authorized to withhold most of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also determined that the District had waived its privilege over some of the information in dispute under s. 14 and that a small amount of the information in dispute under s. 12(3)(b) did not fall within the scope of that section. The adjudicator ordered the District to provide the information the District was not authorized to withhold to the applicant.
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 requested that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records related to a motor vehicle accident. ICBC provided some information in response but withheld other information under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, ICBC’s application of ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (legal advice and litigation privilege), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator also confirmed ICBC’s application of settlement privilege which is a common law exception to disclosure. The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose some information to the applicant.
The applicant requested all minutes of City Council and committee meetings, emails, and social media messages that included any variation of her name from the City of Pitt Meadows (the City). The City disclosed the records but withheld some information under ss. (13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 14 in full, and its decision under ss. 22(1) in part, and ordered the City to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1) 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 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).
An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related
to an external investigation of the University’s treatment of the applicant. The University
disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator
determined that the University was authorized to withhold all the information withheld
under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some information withheld under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered the University to disclose that information.
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).
An applicant requested access to all records held by the Ministry of Attorney General related to a certain company and created within a specific time frame. The Ministry identified responsive records but withheld them in their entirety under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold most, but not all, of the responsive records under s. 14. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to release the records that were not covered by s. 14 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.
An applicant requested records relating to conditional water licences from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). The Ministry provided the applicant with partial access to the responsive records but withheld some information in the records relying on several different exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined the Ministry properly applied s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) to withhold the information at issue. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized to withhold some, but not all, of the information at issue under ss. 15(1)(l) (security of a communications system) and 18(a) (harm to the conservation of heritage sites). The adjudicator also determined the Ministry was required to withhold most, but not all, of the information at issue under s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). Lastly, the adjudicator found that s. 3(5)(a) applies to some of the records at issue, thus they fall outside the scope of FIPPA.
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.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to a residential property. The City of Burnaby (City) withheld information in the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. In some cases, the City applied one or more FIPPA exceptions to the same information. The City also argued some information was not responsive to the applicant’s access request and, therefore, could be withheld. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) review the City’s decision to refuse access. The adjudicator found the information withheld by the City as “non-responsive” was in fact responsive to the access request and ordered the City to disclose some of that information. The adjudicator also determined the City could not withhold any of the information at issue under s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences). However, the adjudicator decided the City properly applied s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) to some of the information withheld from the responsive records. The City was ordered to disclose the information that the adjudicator determined could not be withheld under a FIPPA exception to access.
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the applicant requested information from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) regarding complaints made about the applicant and the College's response to the applicant's concerns about her medical corporation. The College disclosed most of the information to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege). The adjudicator determined the College was not authorized to withhold any of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) but was authorized to withhold all the information in dispute under s. 14. The adjudicator ordered the College to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose.
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 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 requested records and correspondence relating to the terms of reference given to an external investigator retained by Thompson Rivers University (TRU). TRU disclosed responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. TRU applied both ss. 13 and 14 to the same information. Given the finding that s. 14 did not apply to some of the information, the adjudicator ordered TRU, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the records withheld under s. 13(1) for the purpose of deciding this issue on the merits.
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to information revealing the total legal fees incurred by The Corporation of the District of Summerland (the District) at an arbitration and appeal for an employment law matter. The District withheld all of the information pertaining to legal fees under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (protection of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the aggregate sum of legal fees could not be withheld under s. 14 because there was no reasonable possibility that disclosure could reveal privileged communications. The adjudicator further found that the aggregated sum of fees was not personal information, so the District was not required or permitted to refuse disclosure under s. 22(1). Finally, the adjudicator required the District under s. 6(2) to create a record containing the aggregate sum because doing so would not unreasonably interfere with the District’s operations.
An applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) for records relating to herself and a particular College complaint investigation file. The College provided partial access, withholding information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14. The adjudicator also determined that the College is required or authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information that the College withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
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 applicant requested the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) provide access to records about birth alerts. The Ministry initially withheld information in the records under several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Most of the issues were resolved at the outset of the inquiry, so the adjudicator only had to decide if s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) applied to the records. The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to refuse access under s. 14.
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 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, including records related to an investigation that he was the subject of. The Law Society withheld the records in dispute in their entirety under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Law Society was authorized to withhold the records in dispute under s. 14. As a result, it was not necessary to consider ss. 13(1) or 22(1).
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.
The applicant made a request to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records about her employment with PHSA. PHSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that PHSA correctly applied ss. 14 and 22(1). As a result, it was unnecessary to consider s. 13.
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).
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General related to the estimated costs for implementing the Community Safety Act. The Ministry provided access to some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 16 (intergovernmental relations) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse access in part under ss. 13(1) and 14, but not under s. 16, and that it was not required to refuse access under s. 12(1), except for two portions to which ss. 12(1), 13(1) and 16 are yet to be determined. The adjudicator rejected the applicant’s argument that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) applies. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose to the applicant the information that it is not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 12(1), 13(1), 14, and 16(1)(a)(ii). The adjudicator also ordered the Ministry, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce two pages of the records in dispute to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for the purposes of adjudicating the other exceptions.
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).
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 applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the application and appointment of a specific BC Supreme Court master. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under multiple exceptions to access. In some cases, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information in the responsive records under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. Given their finding on s. 22(1), the adjudicator did not need to consider whether s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) also applied to the same information. The Ministry was ordered to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under FIPPA. The Ministry also argued, and the adjudicator confirmed, that some of the responsive records fell outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(3)(c); therefore, the applicant had no right to access those records under FIPPA.
An applicant made a request 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 a copy of a workplace investigation report prepared for the City of Revelstoke (City). The investigation report was partially about the applicant. The City provided the applicant with a copy of the report, but withheld some information in it under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 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 City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
The applicants 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 from a meeting of the Law Society’s Discipline Committee. The Law Society disclosed some information to the applicants but withheld most of the responsive records in their entirety under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed the Law Society’s decision that it is authorized to refuse to disclose the records in dispute under s. 14. As a result, the adjudicator did not consider s. 22.
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.
An applicant requested the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) give him access to his registrant file. The College refused access to some of the records and parts of records under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and pursuant to s. 26.2 of the Health Professions Act (HPA). The adjudicator finds that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 26.2 of the HPA apply to most of the information in dispute. The adjudicator orders the College to give the applicant access to the information to which those provisions do not apply.
An applicant requested records about an investigation conducted by the Independent Investigations Office (IIO). The IIO refused to disclose some records under s. 3(3)(a) (court record) and some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(c) (harm to law enforcement), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found s. (3)(3)(a) did not apply to the records in dispute. The adjudicator confirmed the IIO’s decision regarding s. 14 and found that ss. 16(1)(b) and 22(1) applied to most, but not all, of the information withheld under those sections. However, the adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(c) did not apply to most of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(c). The IIO was required to respond to the applicant’s request for access to the records that the IIO withheld under s. 3(3)(a). The IIO was required to disclose the information that the IIO was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 15(1)(c), 16(1)(b) and 22(1).
An applicant 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 the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) provide access to records about birth alerts. The Ministry refused to disclose some information in the records under ss. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and disputed the applicant’s claim that disclosure was required in the public interest under s. 25(1)(b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to refuse access under s. 14 and it was not necessary to decide if s. 13(1) also applied to the same information. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry, pursuant to s. 44(1), to provide the disputed information so the adjudicator could decide if s. 25(1)(b) applied.
An applicant requested information about the total legal fees incurred by the
Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) in defending two specified disputes with her. The Ministry withheld the information under s. 14 of FIPPA (solicitor-client privilege). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information under s. 14.
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to certain records relating to its preliminary application to subdivide a property. The District of North Vancouver (District) provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the District was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations).
An individual made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal) for records relating to two complaints he had made to that office. In response, the Tribunal withheld the records in their entirety under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Tribunal’s s. 14 decision.
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 applicant requested a specific report and related appraisals from the City of Vancouver (City). The City withheld the report under ss. 12(3)(b) (local body confidences) and 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant also complained that the City did not conduct an adequate search for records as part of its duty to assist under s. 6(1). The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to the report but that the City did not fulfil its duty to assist under s. 6(1).
The applicant requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). In response, the Ministry provided 8,936 pages of responsive records, withholding some information under a number of different exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under ss. 13(1), and 14 and some of the information under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) and 18(a). The Ministry was required to withhold some information in dispute under ss. 12(1) and 22(1). However, the Ministry was required to disclose some of the information it withheld under ss. 12(1), 16(1)(a)(iii), 18(a) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 16(1)(c) did not apply to the information considered under that section. The Ministry also withheld some information under common law settlement privilege, but did not provide the records in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to produce the records for the purpose of adjudicating settlement privilege. The applicant also complained that the Ministry did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for text messages and deleted emails.
An 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.
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 requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
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 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 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 access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a copy of an audit conducted by the Fraser Health Authority. The audit focused on several companies that the Fraser Health Authority contracted to provide home care support services. Fraser Health Authority refused to disclose all of the information in the record under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and parts of the record under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 17(1) (harm to
a public body’s financial or economic interests) of FIPPA. The applicant claimed the record should be disclosed under s. 25(1)(b) since the disclosure is clearly in the public interest. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to refuse access to the record
under s. 14 and concluded s. 25(1)(b) did not apply in the circumstances. The
adjudicator did not find it necessary to also consider whether the Ministry was authorized to withhold information in the record under ss. 13(1) and 17(1).
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).
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo), the Evergreen Line and the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) provided partial access to the records by withholding information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1)(a) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (disclosure harmful to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 12(1), 14 and 22(1), but was not authorized or required to withhold the remaining information in dispute.
The applicant requested a variety of information from Community Living
British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld
other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA).
This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to
ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client
privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no
disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken
together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or
required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.
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.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant requested access to records the City obtained from its lawyer regarding the sale of land. The adjudicator determined the records were legal opinions and confirmed the City’s decision that solicitor client privilege applied and the City was authorized to refuse access under s. 14 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator also found that the applicant failed to establish that solicitor client privilege had been waived.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board (Board) for records relating to an investigation into the conduct of a former chief of the Victoria Police Department. The Board provided the applicant with responsive records severed under ss. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of FIPPA), 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA, as well as common law settlement privilege. The applicant withdrew his request for review of the records and information withheld under ss. 12(3)(b), 15(1)(l) and 22(1). The adjudicator confirmed the Board’s decision under s. 3(1)(c), determined that the Board was authorized to refuse to disclose some but not all of the information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 14, and found it unnecessary to consider settlement privilege.
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 applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investigation that led to the well known 2012 Ministry employee firings. The Ministry provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This order considers ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 applied, and that s. 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that she found s. 22 did not apply to.
An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal information. The public body refused access to information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that ss. 13,14 and 22 applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 17 did not. The adjudicator ordered the public body to disclose a small amount of information to the applicant.
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 made seven requests to five public bodies for access to records relating to an identified mining project. The public bodies withheld information in the records under a number of exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the public bodies applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the public bodies were authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(1)(cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a system), 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party
personal privacy). However, the adjudicator found that some of the withheld information
did not fall within the claimed exceptions, and ordered the public bodies to disclose that information to the applicant.
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.
An applicant requested access to all records related to the province’s
policies and procedures regarding solicitor client privilege. The Ministry of Attorney
General (Ministry) refused to disclose the information under s. 14 (solicitor client
privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant
claimed that the records should be disclosed under s. 25 (public interest override). The
adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply and confirmed the Ministry’s decision to refuse
access under s. 14.
The applicant requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
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 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.
An applicant requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (College). The College withheld information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the College applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the College was required to withhold some information under ss. 13 and 14, but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13, 14 and 22 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(5) was not applicable since a third party did not confidentially supply any information about the applicant. However, the adjudicator ordered the College to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient explanation and evidence that the College exercised its discretion on proper grounds and considered all relevant factors.
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.
An applicant requested information related to a specific motor vehicle accident claim from ICBC. ICBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several exceptions to access in FIPPA. At inquiry, the adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision to apply these FIPPA exceptions to most of the information in dispute and ordered ICBC to disclose the rest to the applicant.
The applicant made a request to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to records relating to an investigation the FHA conducted under the Adult Guardianship Act. The FHA withheld the information in dispute under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the FHA was not authorized to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 14 and that the FHA was required to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 22.
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 applicants made a joint request for access to records relating to a complaint they made to the Law Society of British Columbia (Law Society) about a lawyer. The Law Society withheld the disputed information under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and s. 88(2) (privileged and confidential information) of the Legal Profession Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Law Society’s decision under s. 14 of FIPPA and s. 88(2) of the LPA regarding solicitor-client privilege and concluded that it was unnecessary to consider s. 22.
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 applicant asked the BC Public Service Agency (PSA) for records related to a workplace investigation that occurred in the aftermath of the well-known Ministry of Health firings. The PSA withheld all the responsive records under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 13 (advice and recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to all but three of the records, two of which the PSA also withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the PSA to disclose the record not covered by s. 14 to the applicant. The adjudicator also ordered the PSA to produce the remaining two records to the commissioner under s. 44 and will remain seized of the matter until she makes a final decision respecting s. 22.
The applicant requested access to records held by the Ministry of Attorney
General relating to an identified land deal. The Ministry denied access to the responsive emails, email strings and their attachments on the basis that s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to all of the information in dispute, as the emails and their attachments all related to the seeking, formulating, or giving of legal advice.
The applicant pharmacy requested information from the Ministry of Health
relating to the investigation of the pharmacy and the termination of its licence, including
communications with the College of Pharmacists. The Ministry provided over 3500
pages of records but withheld information in those records under a number of exceptions
in FIPPA. The adjudicator found that only ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 13 (advice
and recommendations) were at issue in the inquiry. The adjudicator also found that the
Ministry could withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 14 and that
s. 13 did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to provide the applicant with
access to the information to which ss. 13 and 14 did not apply.
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.
A professor made two requests for records related to an investigation and to certain communications about him. The University of Victoria gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University of Victoria’s decision to refuse the applicant access under ss. 14 and 22.
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 access to records related to the Water Management Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed some information to the applicant, but it withheld information relying on several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator also determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy), but ordered the Ministry to disclose the remaining information withheld under these sections to the applicant. Lastly, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because it provided no evidence that it had properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1).
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 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 applicant requested access to records related to the Sunshine Coast Tourism Society’s application for the implementation of the municipal and regional district tax in two regional districts. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) withheld information in the records under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). For some of the records, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14 (solicitor client privilege), but ordered it to disclose the remaining information withheld under these sections to the applicant. The adjudicator also found the Ministry was not authorized or required to withhold information under ss. 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations) or 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy).
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.
The applicant requested access to a variety of records about himself in the files of a specific Ministry of Attorney General employee. The Ministry of Attorney General denied access to the records on the basis that s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to most of the withheld information, but ordered the Ministry to disclose two particular emails to the applicant.
Two applicants requested access to records related to themselves and a particular property. The City withheld information in the records on the basis that s. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13(1) and 14 only applied to some of the withheld information and ordered the City to disclose the remainder to the applicants. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision to withhold information under s. 22(1).
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.
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.
The applicant requested records relating to WorkSafeBC’s settlement with a former WorkSafeBC employee. WorkSafeBC identified a Memorandum of Settlement as responsive but withheld it on the basis of common law settlement privilege and ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 17(1) (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body). The adjudicator found that WorkSafeBC was authorized to withhold the record on the basis of settlement privilege.
The City of White Rock refused access to records relating to its decision to censure one of its councillors on the basis of ss. 12(3)(b) (local body confidences), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 12(3)(b), 14 and 22(1) applied in part and ordered disclosure of the remaining information in dispute.
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 sought access to a two page email chain between a Ministry
employee and a Deputy Regional Crown Counsel. The Ministry refused access under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the email chain was not protected by solicitor client privilege and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the applicant.
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.
An applicant requested records relating to the Ministry’s procurement of legal services from external counsel for a specified legal matter. The adjudicator determined that s. 14 of FIPPA authorizes the Ministry to refuse to disclose the withheld information because it is subject to solicitor client privilege.
An applicant requested access to records about a meeting between the former Minister of Natural Gas Development and executives of a company proposing to build a liquefied natural gas processing and export facility. The Ministry disclosed records to the applicant, but withheld some information in them pursuant to exceptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator disagreed with the applicant’s claim that the Ministry was required to disclose the information under s. 25 (disclosure in public interest). The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body) and 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) applied to most of the information but s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) did not. The Ministry was ordered to give the applicant access to some of the information in dispute.
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.
An applicant requested records that related to himself, his deceased son and his son’s death. The applicant made the request on his own behalf and on behalf of his son. The Ministry decided that the applicant’s request was not properly made on behalf of his son and he was not authorized to exercise his son’s access rights under FIPPA. It provided some records in response to the applicant’s own request but refused to disclose parts of them and other records under ss. 3 (scope of the Act), 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) and 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as ss. 77(1) and 77(2)(b) of the Child, Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA) and s. 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). The adjudicator determined that the applicant was not acting on behalf of his son and was not authorized to exercise his son’s access rights under FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry correctly applied ss. 13, 14 and 15(1)(l). The adjudicator also concluded that s. 22(1) of FIPPA and ss. 77(1) and 77(2)(b) of the CFCSA and s. 110 of the YCJA applied to some of the information. It was not necessary for the adjudicator to consider s. 3 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested the total amount of legal costs incurred by the
Province in a high profile lawsuit. The Ministry of Attorney General withheld the
information on the basis of s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator held that the
presumption that the requested information was protected by solicitor client privilege had
been rebutted and required the information to be disclosed to the applicant.
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 applicant requested records from the Law Society relating to its involvement a specific case before the Court of Appeal. The Law Society withheld all the records in their entirety on the basis of ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed the decision of the Law Society to withhold the records under s. 14. As a result, the adjudicator did not consider s. 22.
The applicant requested records relating to a complaint that he made about a lawyer employed by the Law Society. The Law Society withheld some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed that the Law Society is authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 14 and required, in part, to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 22.
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 requested briefing notes for the attorney general on a specific topic. The Ministry refused to disclose the briefing notes in their entirety under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to all of the information in dispute except for third party correspondence attached to one briefing note. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 did not apply to the correspondence. The adjudicator required the public body to sever the correspondence under s. 4(2) and disclose it to the applicant.
A 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.
An applicant requested access to a settlement agreement involving
an individual, two real estate agents and other parties. The Real Estate Errors and
Omissions Insurance Corporation (REEOIC) provided the applicant with a copy of the
settlement agreement, but it withheld information under settlement privilege, s. 17 (harm
to financial or economic interests of a public body), s. 21 (harm to business interests of a
third party) and s. 22 (harm to third party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator
found REEOIC was authorized under common law settlement privilege to withhold the
information. Given this finding, the adjudicator did not consider whether ss. 17, 21 or 22
also applied to the withheld information.
A journalist requested a copy of a cheque as proof that certain funds had been repaid by a former BC Lottery Corporation executive. He also requested copies of related correspondence including the agreement between the parties regarding the repayment. BCLC withheld information and records under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA and common law settlement privilege. Except for the cheque number and the memo line, the adjudicator determined BCLC was required to withhold information under s. 22 and it was authorized to withhold information under s. 14 of FIPPA and settlement privilege.
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.
The applicant requested copies of invoices issued to the City of White Rock (City) for legal services obtained in 2015 and part of 2016. The City provided records to the applicant, but withheld most of the information on the basis it was protected by solicitor client privilege under s. 14 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the City was authorized under s. 14 to refuse to disclose some of the information in the invoices, including a description of the legal services. However, the adjudicator found that s. 14 did not apply to other withheld information, including the total amount of legal fees.
A journalist requested records related to the health risks associated with eating meat from the Coquitlam pig farm where the remains of Robert Pickton’s murder victims were found. The journalist requested a review of the Ministry of Health’s decision to refuse to disclose some records under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 15(1)(g) (prosecutorial discretion) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to refuse access to most of the records under s. 14. However, the adjudicator found that s. 14 did not apply to six pages and ordered the Ministry to disclose them to the applicant. It was not necessary to consider s. 15(1)(g).
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.
The applicant requested information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) about the suspension of three physicians’ hospital privileges. VIHA refused to disclose the information pursuant to s. 51 of the Evidence Act and ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 51 did not apply to the records but confirmed VIHA’s decisions regarding most of the information withheld under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator concluded that s. 17 did not apply to the records.
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.
Applicants requested information about a settlement agreement between the
City of Vancouver and an individual who had been wrongfully incarcerated. The City provided the responsive records but withheld most of the information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), s. 21 (harm to business interests of a third party), s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and under common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized under s. 14 of FIPPA and under common law settlement privilege to withhold the information. Given these findings, the adjudicator did not have to consider whether ss. 17, 21 or 22 applied to the records.
The applicant requested all records relating to ICBC’s 2016 Hall of Shame/Anti-Fraud campaign. ICBC refused to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision.
The applicant requested a list describing the subject matters of briefing notes. The Ministry refused to disclose some descriptions under ss. 3(1)(h) (outside scope of Act), 12 (cabinet confidences), 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision regarding ss. 3(1)(h) and 14. She also confirmed its decision regarding s. 13(1), with the exception of eight of the descriptions. She found that s. 16(1)(b) applied to only five of the eight, and the other three must be disclosed to the applicant. There was no need to consider ss. 12 or 22.
An applicant requested information about Immediate Roadside Prohibitions that the Tofino RCMP issued during a particular period of time. The Ministry provided the responsive records and withheld some information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence from a federal government agency) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized under s. 14 and required under s. 22 to withhold the information. The adjudicator, therefore, did not have to consider whether s. 16(1)(b) applied to the records.
The applicant requested records about a proposed Ministry policy regarding damage to the reputation of employees during legal proceedings. The Ministry disclosed some information, but it withheld other information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 12 (cabinet confidences), s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information from the records under ss. 13 and 14. Given that finding, there was no need to also consider ss. 12 and 22.
The applicant requested copies of a survey conducted by a co-worker and any related records. The public body located a survey cover letter, survey questions, the survey responses, and the names of the individuals who completed the survey. The public body disclosed some of the survey questions and responses to the applicant and withheld the rest under s. 22 of FIPPA (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The public body also located a related workplace investigation report and withheld it in its entirety under ss. 22 and 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s ss. 14 and 22 decisions regarding some of the information. However, the adjudicator found that the public body was not required to refuse to disclose some information under s. 22 and ordered the public body to disclose that information to the applicant.
An applicant requested 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 requested records about a crane investigation. WorkSafeBC disclosed some information, but it withheld other information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13 and 14 apply to some of the withheld information.
A 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 workplace investigation. The Ministry of Finance disclosed the responsive records but severed the contents of one email pursuant to ss. 13 (advice and recommendations) and 14 (legal advice) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to withhold the information under s. 14, and therefore did not need to consider s. 13.
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.
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.
The applicant asked the City of Burnaby for a list of all legal fees and costs it incurred regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline since January 1, 2013. Burnaby refused to disclose the requested information on the grounds that it was subject to solicitor client privilege, so s. 14 of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator confirmed Burnaby’s decision.
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 applicants requested that the Delta Police Department (DPD) provide any records about themselves. DPD gave the applicants access to the responsive records but refused to disclose some information in them under s. 68.1(9) of the Police Act and ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(e) (reveal criminal intelligence), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed DPD’s decision to withhold information under s. 68.1(9) of the Police Act, and under ss. 14, 15 and 22. The adjudicator found that DPD properly withheld information pursuant to s. 16(1)(b), with the exception of one small excerpt. The adjudicator also ordered DPD to reconsider its exercise of discretion respecting a second small excerpt withheld under s. 16(1)(b). In addition, during the inquiry, the applicants asserted that s. 25 (disclosure of the information is in the public interest) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply.
The applicant requested records relating to his employment with the IIO. The IIO withheld records and information under s. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), s. 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the IIO’s decision regarding ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 16(1)(b) and 22. The adjudicator determined that the IIO was not authorized to refuse the applicant access to information under s. 15 and required it give the applicant access to that information (subject only to information that it was authorized to refuse to disclose under the other exceptions).
The applicant asked the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for records relating to an avalanche program. The Ministry withheld some of the information on the basis that it revealed policy advice or recommendations under s. 13, that the information was privileged under s. 14, and that its disclosure would be harmful to the government’s financial or economic interests under s. 17 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse access to information under ss. 13 and 14, but not under s. 17.
The applicant, a health care practitioner whose billings were audited by the Ministry of Health, requested records relating to a hearing that he had. The Ministry withheld the records on the basis that they were privileged under s. 14 of FIPPA. With one exception, the adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse access to the information.
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.
An applicant requested records concerning meetings between the Ministry and various stakeholders in regards to the purchase or lease of certain properties in the Tofino area. The Ministry disclosed some records, but withheld some information under s. 12(1) (cabinet confidences) and s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”). The adjudicator found that some information must be withheld under s. 12(1) and other information may be withheld under s. 14.
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.
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 former chair of the Board of Education for School District No. 71 (Comox Valley) requested records related to an operational review of the school district. The Board refused to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations) and s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that all of the information withheld under s. 14 was protected by solicitor client privilege and that the privilege had not been waived.
A journalist requested records related to the BC Association of Chiefs of
Police and the BC Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police. The Victoria Police
Department disclosed some records but refused to disclose other records and
information under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 15, 16 and 22 of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”) and s. 182 of the Police Act. The adjudicator found
that some records could be withheld because they are outside the scope of FIPPA due
to s. 3(1)(c) of FIPPA and others because s. 182 of the Police Act applied.
The adjudicator also found that some information could be withheld under s. 13 (advice
or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (1)(c) and (l) (harm to law
enforcement) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). However, VicPD was not authorized
to refuse to disclose any of the information it withheld under s. 16 (harm to
intergovernmental relations or negotiations).
An applicant requested records related to 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.
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 Architectural Institute of BC’s (“AIBC”) lawyer investigated a complaint about the applicant. AIBC refused to disclose a copy of the lawyer’s investigation report to the applicant, under s. 13 (advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested that the parties’ dispute over the matter proceed to inquiry. AIBC requested the Commissioner exercise her discretion under s. 56 of FIPPA to not conduct an inquiry. The adjudicator granted AIBC’s request because it was plain and obvious that the report was protected by solicitor client privilege and could be withheld under s. 14 of FIPPA.
An applicant requested records relating to a program about medical residency positions for international medical graduates. The Ministry of Health disclosed some information, but withheld most of it on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) or s. 14 (legal advice) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information withheld under s. 14, but not the information withheld under s. 13.
A former employee requested that the City of Richmond disclose the total amount paid to settle disputes with two former employees, as well as the total legal fees incurred for those matters. The City withheld the total amount paid to settle disputes under ss. 14 and 17 of FIPPA, and the legal fee information under ss.14, 17 and 22. The adjudicator determined that none of the exceptions applied and ordered the information disclosed.
In Order F14-27 it was held that VIHA could not sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that those portions were ‘outside the scope’ of the applicant’s request. A reconsideration was sought and this order decides that issue. FIPPA does not authorize a public body to sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that they are outside the scope of an applicant’s request. VIHA is ordered to consider the applicant’s request as it relates to those portions and disclose them with the exception of any information to which exceptions to disclosure set out in Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA apply.
The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association requested that ICBC provide records related to the data sharing and privacy aspects of combining the BC driver’s licence with the BC Services Card. ICBC refused to disclose some of the information in the responsive records under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (legal advice) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that, with a few exceptions, most of information was properly withheld under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator determined that disclosure of the withheld personal information would not be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, so ICBC was not authorized to withhold it under s. 22. ICBC also refused to disclose parts of the records on the basis that they were “not responsive” or outside the scope of the applicant’s request. The adjudicator held that ICBC is not authorized to refuse to disclose the information on that basis, and the only part of a responsive record that may be withheld is that which is covered by an exception under Part 2 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested the Ministry provide records related to his landfill operation. The Ministry refused to disclose some information under s. 3(1)(h) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 3(1)(h) did not apply and the records were within the scope of FIPPA. The adjudicator also found that most of the information withheld under ss. 13, 14 and 22, and all of the information withheld under ss. 15(1)(d) and (l), was appropriately withheld under those exceptions. The Ministry also severed information from the records on the basis that the information was “not responsive” to the applicant’s request. The adjudicator held that FIPPA does not authorize refusing to disclose information on that basis.
The applicant requested that the City of Courtenay provide information about City council resolutions and votes concerning a privately owned property. The City refused to disclose information on the grounds that disclosure would reveal the substance of City council’s in camera deliberations (s. 12(3)(b) of FIPPA) and because the information was protected by solicitor client privilege (s. 14 of FIPPA). The adjudicator found that most of the information could be withheld under s. 12(3)(b). However, the balance of the information in dispute (i.e., names of meeting attendees, dates and times of the meetings, and the date the minutes were adopted, signed and certified as correct) could not be withheld under either s. 12(3)(b) or s. 14.
A journalist requested a list of Private Career Training Institutions Agency’s suppliers and contractors that were paid more than $10,000 in either of two fiscal years, as well as the amounts of those payments. The Agency disclosed most of the information, but withheld the identity and payment amount information for its legal counsel on the basis that the information was subject to solicitor client privilege (s. 14 of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that solicitor client privilege did not apply and required the Agency to disclose the withheld information.
The applicant requested details of financial transactions between the Ministry and the law firm Borden Ladner Gervais and between the Ministry and a specific lawyer in that firm. The requested information was contained in legal retainer agreements, requests to retain outside legal counsel, legal invoices and associated records. The Ministry refused to disclose the requested information under s. 14 of FIPPA on the grounds that it was subject to solicitor client privilege. The adjudicator found that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose the requested information under s. 14.
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Justice relating to a workplace investigation involving him that resulted in his employment being terminated. The Ministry disclosed some records and withheld others, citing ss. 13, 14, 15, and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information withheld under ss. 14 and 22, and all of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(c). The remaining information was required to be withheld under s. 22 or authorized to be withheld under ss. 13 or 15(1)(l).The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Justice relating to a workplace investigation involving him that resulted in his employment being terminated. The Ministry disclosed some records and withheld others, citing ss. 13, 14, 15, and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information withheld under ss. 14 and 22, and all of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(c). The remaining information was required to be withheld under s. 22 or authorized to be withheld under ss. 13 or 15(1)(l).
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Health relating to the regulation of raw milk in BC. The Ministry disclosed some records to the applicant. The Ministry withheld some records under ss.13 (policy advice), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22 (third party personal information) of FIPPA and some others on the basis that they are outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(j). The adjudicator ordered disclosure of the information withheld under s. 3(1)(j) and some of the information withheld under ss. 13, 14 and 22. The remaining information was required to be withheld under s. 22 or authorized to be withheld under ss. 13 or 14.
The applicant requested information regarding BCSC’s communications with government and private organizations regarding the applicant and four named companies. BCSC refused to disclose the requested information on the grounds that the information was protected by solicitor-client privilege and s. 14 of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that BCSC had proven that litigation privilege applied to some of the records and they could be withheld under s. 14. However, neither litigation privilege nor legal advice privilege applied to the rest of the records, so they could not be withheld under s. 14.
The applicant requested access to legal advice received by the Capital Regional District (“CRD”) regarding a new zoning bylaw proposed by the Township of Esquimalt. The adjudicator found that the CRD was authorized to refuse to disclose the legal advice under s. 14 of FIPPA because it is subject to solicitor client privilege and the privilege had not been waived.
The City had applied to the Commissioner for authority under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant, one of the parties against whom s. 43 had been sought, requested access to City records relating to that application. The City disclosed some records but withheld others. Section 14 authorizes the City to withhold information that it withheld on the basis of privilege.
An applicant requested records from the City of Coquitlam regarding bylaw infraction complaints about a property occupied by the applicant. The City disclosed most of the information but withheld complainant identity information and some other information under ss. 12(3)(a), 13, 14, 15(1)(d) and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 14 or 22 of FIPPA applied to nearly all of the withheld information in dispute. While s. 22 did not apply to a small amount of information withheld under s. 22, it was not necessary to consider the application of ss. 12, 13 or 15 to the records because all of the information withheld under those sections falls under ss. 14 or 22.
The applicant requested information from ICBC relating to a claim she made concerning a motor vehicle accident. ICBC released some information but withheld other information under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 17 and 22 of FIPPA. ICBC is authorized to withhold most of the information it withheld under s. 14 of FIPPA because it is subject to solicitor-client privilege. ICBC is required to withhold some information it withheld under s. 22 of FIPPA because releasing the information would be an unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy. Some information does not need to be disclosed because it is outside of the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c) of the Act. The remaining information must be disclosed.
The applicant requested records related to the removal of a dam, including its environmental impacts on a nearby lake. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations disclosed most of the records, but withheld two email chains on the basis that they were subject to solicitor client privilege (s. 14 of FIPPA). The applicant alleges that s. 25 of FIPPA requires disclosure of this information on the basis that it is about a risk of significant harm to the environment or that disclosure is clearly in the public interest. The adjudicator found that s. 25 does not apply and the Ministry was authorized to withhold the records because they are subject to solicitor client privilege.
The applicant requested records related to the processing of a previous request for records. The Ministry released 33 pages of records but withheld a further 10 pages on the basis they were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized under s. 14 of FIPPA to withhold the 10 pages of records.
A journalist requested records related to the City of Vancouver’s closed circuit television system. The City refused to disclose some of the requested information under ss. 13, 14, 15, 17 and 19. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose some information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and other information under s. 14 (legal advice). However, the adjudicator found that the City had not established that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the harms in s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), s. 17 (harm to the City’s financial or economic interests) or s. 19 (harm to public safety). In addition, the adjudicator ordered the City to process, under Part 2, Division 2 of FIPPA, the information that it incorrectly withheld from the records as being not responsive, repeats and examples.
An applicant, a lawyer, sought records relating to court applications by ICBC for personal costs against him. The personal costs applications arose from a motor vehicle accident claim in which the applicant was counsel. ICBC withheld the records under s. 13 and all of the records save one page under s. 14 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that all of the information withheld under s. 14 as subject to solicitor-client privilege could be withheld. ICBC was required to disclose the information it withheld in the remaining page of the records because it did not contain advice or recommendations under s. 13 of FIPPA.
The Resort Municipality of Whistler retained a lawyer to investigate the applicant’s workplace harassment complaint. The applicant requested a copy of the report the lawyer produced and Whistler withheld it under s. 14 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the report is privileged and authorized Whistler to withhold it under s. 14.
The applicant requested information from the Vancouver Island Health Authority relating to VIHA’s decision-making process concerning fixed site needle exchange services in Greater Victoria. VIHA withheld information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13, 14 and 22 of FIPPA. It also withheld other information on the basis that the information was outside of the scope of the applicant’s request. The adjudicator was not satisfied that s. 12(3)(b) applies. However, he determined that ss. 14 and 22 apply to all of the information withheld under those sections and that s. 13 applies to most of the information withheld under that section. The adjudicator also ordered VIHA to process the applicant’s request for the information it had marked out of scope.
An applicant requested records about himself and the British Columbia Onsite Sewage Association from the Ministry of Health. The Ministry withheld responsive records on the basis that: disclosure would reveal policy advice or recommendations (s. 13), solicitor-client privilege applies (s. 14), and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties (s. 22). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold most of the records under these sections, but it was ordered to disclose some records. The adjudicator also determined the Ministry failed to exercise its discretion for the records withheld under s. 13 and ordered it to do so.
A journalist requested records relating to the Pacific Career Training Institutions Agency’s procurement of legal services from Lawson Lundell for a specified legal matter. The adjudicator determined that the Agency is authorized to refuse to disclose the withheld information because it is subject to solicitor client privilege under s. 14 of FIPPA.
A journalist requested copies of legal invoices issued by Lawson Lundell to the Pacific Career Training Institutions Agency in 2012, as well as the proofs of payment by the Agency. The Agency withheld the records on the basis that they were subject to solicitor client privilege (s. 14 of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that the records are subject to solicitor client privilege.
The applicant requested information relating to paternity testing conducted at Vancouver General Hospital. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority withheld some records under s. 3(1)(c), s. 14, s. 15(1)(l) and s. 22 of FIPPA. The Adjudicator found that VCHA was authorized to withhold the records withheld under ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 and was required to withhold some records under s. 22 FIPPA. The remaining records must be disclosed.
A member of the Legislative Assembly of BC requested information from the Ministry related to the decision to fund the legal expenses of two ministerial assistants who were charged with criminal offences. He argued that disclosure of the records was clearly in the public interest (s. 25). The Ministry withheld some of the responsive records claiming they were protected by solicitor-client privilege (s. 14) and others because it believed disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy (s. 22). The ministerial assistants argued that all of the information in dispute should be withheld under ss. 14 and 22.
The adjudicator finds that s. 25(1)(b) does not apply to the responsive records. The adjudicator also finds that the Ministry is authorized to refuse access to all of the information in dispute under s. 14 because it is protected by solicitor-client privilege. In light of the conclusion that s. 14 applies to all of the disputed information, there is no need to consider s. 22.
The applicant requested information related to the Province’s decision to fund the legal expenses of two ministerial assistants who were charged with criminal offences. The Ministry withheld some of the responsive records claiming they were protected by solicitor-client privilege (s. 14) and others because it believed disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy (s. 22). The ministerial assistants argued that all of the information in dispute should be withheld under ss. 14 and 22.
The adjudicator finds that the Ministry is authorized to refuse access to all of the information in dispute under s. 14 because it is protected by solicitor-client privilege. In light of the conclusion that s. 14 applies to all of the disputed information, there is no need to consider s. 22.
The applicants requested records relating to an investigation into their complaint that City officials improperly entered duplex units owned by the applicants. The City disclosed some records, but withheld portions of a memo on the basis that the withheld information was policy advice or recommendations, legal advice, and information that would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy if disclosed. The adjudicator determined that these sections applied to most of the withheld information, but ordered that some information be released.
The applicant requested copies of communications between the City of Powell River and its auditor related to a complaint the applicant made to the City about a barge facility. The adjudicator found that the City was permitted to withhold two legal opinions under s. 14, and parts of an email by the City’s auditor that contains expert opinion and advice under s. 13 of FIPPA. The adjudicator required the City to disclose a draft letter by the City’s auditor containing information already released by the City, three emails from a Councillor and parts of an email from the City’s auditor.
The applicant, a lawyer whose legal practice was under review by the Law Society, requested records related to the review. The Law Society withheld some information from the records under ss. 13, 14 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Law Society was authorized to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 13 and all of the information for which it claimed solicitor-client privilege under s. 14. The adjudicator also found that the Law Society must continue to refuse to disclose the personal information it withheld from the records under s. 22(3)(d) because the information relates to the employment, occupational or educational history of third parties and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy.
A law firm requested four agreements related to litigation initiated by the Province under BC’s Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The Ministry, on behalf of the Province, refused access on the basis that all four agreements were protected by solicitor-client privilege. It also refused access to one of the agreements on the grounds that disclosure would harm the conduct of relations between the Province and other provinces and reveal information received in confidence from other provinces. The adjudicator found that all four agreements were protected by solicitor-client privilege.
The District of North Saanich withheld records requested by a resident relating to the District’s review of an appointment of a person to the Peninsula Recreation Commission. The District said the records would reveal the substance of an in camera District council meeting, and were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator found some records were appropriately withheld because solicitor-client privilege applied, and the remaining records were ordered released.
The applicant requested records relating to all letters, opinions, and reviews from the City’s lawyer referred to in a memo from the City’s Chief Administrative Officer to the Mayor and City Council. The City refused to disclose the records on the basis that solicitor-client privilege applied. The Adjudicator found that solicitor-client privilege applies to the records.
The applicant requested information about what the College’s legal counsel charged for certain services. The responsive records were monthly legal accounts. The adjudicator found that the presumption that the requested information is protected by solicitor-client privilege had not been rebutted.
A journalist requested records relating to medications for the treatment of Adult Macular Degeneration. The Ministries withheld portions of the requested information under ss. 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 of FIPPA. The Assistant Commissioner ordered the public bodies to disclose parts of the withheld information, authorized the public bodies to withhold parts of the withheld information under s. 13, 14, 16, and 17 of FIPPA, and required the public bodies to refuse to disclose parts of the withheld information under ss. 21 and 22 of FIPPA.
The ARA requested correspondence and associated records between ICBC and the federal Competition Bureau. ICBC withheld some of the information on the basis that it constituted advice and recommendations and it was subject to solicitor-client privilege. ICBC also argued that in accordance with the doctrine of paramountcy of federal legislation, FIPPA did not apply in this case because it was in conflict with federal legislation. The Assistant Commissioner found that the doctrine of paramountcy did not apply because there was no valid federal law that applied with respect to the records in the custody and control of ICBC. The Assistant Commissioner found that solicitor-client privilege applied to all of the records for which ICBC claimed this exception. With respect to the remaining information, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the advice and recommendations exception authorized ICBC to withhold some but not all of the information it claimed under this exception.
An applicant asked for records that related to an investigation of the City Mayor that resulted in sanctions against the Mayor. The City withheld those records on the grounds that they were subject to solicitor-client privilege and local government confidences and because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy. The Senior Adjudicator found that the lawyer’s communications with the City, which included a legal opinion, the Summary Report of the investigation of the Mayor and the complaint letters, were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Senior Adjudicator also determined that the complaint letters received prior to the City’s request for a legal opinion had an independent existence in City files, having been collected by the City prior to it seeking legal advice. However, the City was still required to withhold the complaint letters because their disclosure would unreasonably invade third-party privacy.
CUPE requested records related to a labour dispute between BC Paramedics and the Emergency and Health Services Commission. The Commission disclosed some records but withheld other information under ss. 12, 13, 14 and 22 of FIPPA. The A/Senior Adjudicator found the records for which the Commission claimed s. 14 were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Commission was also required to refuse to disclose the records for which it claimed s. 22 because disclosure of that information would be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of certain employees. While the A/Senior Adjudicator determined that the Commission had properly applied ss. 12 and 13 to a number of records, he ordered the Commission to disclose other withheld information because it did not reveal the substance of cabinet deliberations nor did it reveal recommendations or advice by or for a public body.
The applicant requested a copy of a severance agreement between the City and its former Corporate Administrator. The City provided the total severance figure but declined to provide the severance agreement itself, on the basis that the records were subject to solicitor-client privilege and that their disclosure would unreasonably invade the former Corporate Administrator’s privacy. The A/Senior Adjudicator found that because the communication at issue was between the City’s lawyer and a third party, it was not subject to solicitor-client privilege. Further, the information in the record constituted remuneration under s. 22(4)(e) and, therefore, its disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third party privacy.
The applicant asked BCLC for records relating to its compliance with federal Proceeds of Crime legislation. BCLC identified four responsive records, withholding each in their entirety citing three exceptions to disclosure under FIPPA including solicitor-client privilege. BCLC said it provided the records to their solicitor to prepare for litigation in the Federal Appeals Court and as a result they became privileged as part of the “solicitor’s brief”. The A/Senior Adjudicator found the “solicitor’s brief” test did not apply because BCLC’s lawyer did not gather the records from third parties. Rather, counsel obtained the records from BCLC itself who came to possess them in the ordinary course of its business through the regulatory oversight of its operations. They were neither originally gathered nor created for the purpose of litigation. Records that are “ingathered” in this manner do not become privileged simply because they are later handed to the public body’s solicitor.
The Ministry withheld certain information from an employee who requested records relating to the termination of her long-term disability benefits. The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to withhold the information in certain records because some was subject to litigation privilege; some constituted advice or recommendations while other information was found to unreasonably invade a third party’s personal privacy. The adjudicator concluded however that the Ministry was required to release other information that was not created when litigation was in reasonable contemplation. The Ministry was also required to release other information that he found did not consist of advice or recommendations under s. 13 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested information about expenses government incurred during a lawsuit with a construction company. The responsive records related to the legal billings of Ministry lawyers and external legal counsel. The Ministry disclosed some information and withheld other information on the basis it was protected by solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator found the withheld information was presumptively privileged and, in the circumstances of this case, the privilege had not been rebutted.
The applicant requested information relating to his participation in a Liquid Waste Management Plan process. The Ministry disclosed some records and withheld others on the basis they were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator found the records were communications between the Ministry and its solicitor seeking and providing legal advice. The adjudicator also determined there was no evidence that the Ministry either explicitly or impliedly waived privilege in this case.
The applicant was a lawyer involved in a class action lawsuit against UBC over parking fees. She requested a letter and memo that UBC sent to the Ministry concerning the lawsuit. The Ministry refused on the basis that the information consisted of recommendations and advice under s. 13 of FIPPA and because it was protected by solicitor-client privilege. The applicant argued the disputed information constituted lobbying rather than advice. The adjudicator found that lobbying is a matter strictly regulated by the Lobbyists Registration Act and that is not what occurred in this case. This finding is consistent with the scheme of s. 13 that protects advice developed by one public body for another. The adjudicator also rejected the applicant‘s argument for release of the letter and memo because they were a ?proposal? concerning a change to a program about which the Ministry had made a decision. The adjudicator concluded that if the disputed records were a ?proposal? it concerned a change to legislation, not a program.
The applicant, a former Board member of the College, requested certain legal invoices that she said referenced her. The College refused on the basis that solicitor-client privilege protected the responsive records. The adjudicator found that solicitor-client privilege applied to the records and that there was no evidence that the College intended to waive privilege.
The applicant requested the Law Society provide him certain correspondence between Davis LLP and third parties, that were copied to the Law Society and that related to him. The Law Society disclosed some records but withheld others claiming they were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Law Society submitted that it was plain and obvious that s. 14 of FIPPA applied and requested that discretion be exercised to not hold an inquiry in this matter. The adjudicator exercised his discretion to grant the Law Society’s request, finding that it was plain and obvious that solicitor-client privilege applied and the applicant had not made any cogent argument to the contrary.
The City launched court proceedings against the applicant relating to the apprehension of one of his pet dogs and what it alleged was the applicant’s illegal occupation of a City road allowance. Subsequently the applicant requested information relating to himself, his two pet dogs and the City. The City provided a number of records but refused disclosure of others under ss. 14, 15 and 22 of FIPPA. Solicitor-client privilege applied to most of the records in dispute thereby authorizing the City to withhold them under s. 14. Litigation privilege applied to some of these records because even though the two court proceedings were concluded, litigation related to them was reasonably apprehended by the City. The City was authorized to withhold the balance of the records because they could reveal the identity of a confidential source of law enforcement and thereby could reasonably be expected to harm law enforcement.
The applicant requested records connected with research proposals he made to the University’s Research Ethics Board. The University argued the records contained the research information of a post-secondary employee and were outside of FIPPA’s jurisdiction because of s. 3(1)(e). Even though the request for the records came from the employee himself, the adjudicator found, with the exception of two legal opinions, he had no authority over them because FIPPA did not apply. The records contained the research information of a post-secondary employee and were therefore excluded from FIPPA under s. 3(1)(e). The Ministry properly withheld the two legal opinions at issue under s. 14 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested records about the Health Centre’s Peer Review Committee examination of a harassment complaint against him. The PHSA refused to disclose the information because it said some records were personal notes and communications of persons acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and others were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The adjudicator found that s. 3(1)(b) excluded some records from FIPPA’s application while the balance of the records were subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The applicant requested all records related to the permit application of Clayoquot Wilderness Resorts to develop horseriding trails and campsites in Strathcona Park. The Ministry was authorized to withhold all records for which it claimed solicitor-client privilege and most of the records that it withheld under s. 13(1) of FIPPA. The Ministry was required to disclose information from one record because it was a management directive and not a recommendation or advice under s. 13(1).
Following the trial and conviction of a teacher for indecent assault and gross indecency, the School District commissioned Don Avison to conduct a review of its current policies and practices. The applicant requested a copy of the Avison Report that resulted. The School District released a severed version of the Report and withheld the rest, relying on several sections of FIPPA, including that it was protected by solicitor-client privilege. Legal professional privilege did not apply because Avison was not retained to act as a legal advisor to the School District. As a result, his report did not arise within a solicitor-client relationship.
Applicant requested records related to limitation expenditures. School District disclosed minutes of Board meetings in severed form and withheld several items it said related to legal accounts. Section 12(3)(b) found to apply to withheld information in minutes. Section 14 found to apply to lawyers’ bills of account and some other similar information. Section 14 found not to apply to total amounts of payments to law firms.
The applicant requested records Legislative Counsel used to complete the Revised Statutes of BC, 1996. The Ministry withheld them claiming solicitor-client privilege. The applicant argued that Chief Legislative Counsel’s role in preparing revisions to provincial statutes under the Statute Revision Act was not that of a solicitor to the provincial government. Legal professional privilege applies to the requested records and the Ministry was authorized to withhold them.
The GVRD made successful representations to AG Canada urging it to stay proceedings of a private prosecution launched against it under the federal Fisheries Act. The applicant, an environmental group aiding in the private prosecution, later sought access to the records between the GVRD and the AG Canada concerning the stay decision. The GVRD refused on the basis that the records were protected by solicitor-client privilege and that disclosure would reveal information relating to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion under s. 15(1)(g) of FIPPA. Disclosure of the records is ordered. Legal professional privilege does not apply because the records were communications between a lawyer and a third party. Litigation privilege, if it existed, expired because litigation between the parties ended and the possibility of future related litigation was entirely speculative. Section 15(1)(g) of FIPPA did not apply to discretion exercised by federal prosecutors.
The Ministry made successful representations to the Attorney General of Canada urging it to stay proceedings of a private prosecution launched against it under the federal Fisheries Act. The applicant, an environmental group aiding in the private prosecution, sought access to the records between the Ministry and the Attorney General of Canada concerning the stay decision. The Ministry refused on the basis that solicitor-client privilege protected the records. Legal professional privilege does not apply because the records were communications between a lawyer and a third party. Litigation privilege, if it existed, expired because litigation between the parties ended and the possibility of future related litigation was entirely speculative.
A doctor sought records relating to an harassment investigation about him that resulted in the suspension of his hospital privileges. The PHSA argued solicitor-client privilege applied to most of the information and therefore withheld it. Disclosing the remainder, the PHSA contended, would result in the unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy, contrary to s. 22. Legal professional privilege applied to those records for which s. 14 was asserted, and the PHSA was required to withhold the balance of the disputed information under s. 22 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested personal information from two ICBC claims files. ICBC disclosed many records but withheld some in whole or part. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s application of legal advice privilege and, as lawsuits were ongoing, litigation privilege (s. 14). ICBC’s application of s. 22 (personal information of third parties) was confirmed for some but not all information and some information is ordered disclosed. ICBC showed reasonable expectation of financial harm for reserve information but not other information related to its defence in the lawsuits (s. 17) and this other information is ordered disclosed. ICBC properly withheld some information that was advice and recommendations it received from its claims examiner and a physician (s. 13). ICBC is ordered to reconsider its decision to refuse access to CPIC information under s. 16(1)(b)
The applicant, a former employee of BC Hydro, requested records relating to himself, a third party and a private company the two had previously shared an interest in. BC Hydro released some records but withheld some in whole or part. BC Hydro was required to disclose some of the records. BC Hydro was also authorized to withhold some of the records under ss. 13(1) and 14 and was required to withhold others under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.
Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56.
Adjudicator's decision to deny public body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be held.
Applicant requested records in WCB’s legal department file. Records are protected by solicitor-client privilege.
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld and severed others under ss. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22. Ministry required to withhold information under s. 12(1) and authorized to withhold information under s. 13(1) and s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information that it withheld under s. 17 and the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Ministry also ordered to conduct another search for responsive records.
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld information and records under ss. 12(1), 13(1), 14, 16(1), 17(1) and 22(1). Ministry found to have properly withheld information under ss. 12(1) and 13(1) and, with some exceptions, s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information it withheld under s. 16(1) and s. 14.
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld information and records under ss. 12, 13, 14, 17, 21 and 22. Ministry found to have properly withheld information under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) and some information it withheld under s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information it withheld under ss. 14 and 21(1).
The applicant requested a copy of a legal opinion over which the Village claimed solicitor-client privilege. Parts of the opinion were publicly disclosed during an open council meeting and the opinion was also referred to by the Mayor in a letter to a local newspaper. Notwithstanding these disclosures, the Village did not waive privilege over the entire opinion. In circumstances where a public body makes partial disclosure of privileged communications in an effort to give effect to the principle of transparency this will not, without more, result in waiver of privilege over the entire communication. The conduct of the Village did not evidence an intention to waive privilege over the legal opinion and the partial disclosure was not misleading.
Applicant requested her ICBC claim files and files from her ICBC-appointed lawyer. ICBC disclosed many records, but refused access to others. Sections 14, 17 and 22 found to apply to some other remaining information. Section 14 found not to apply to two pages and s. 22 found not to apply to several records.
The applicant and the provincial government participated in energy regulation hearings in the United States and Canada about an energy project the applicant had proposed. The applicant made an access request to the Ministry for records about the proposed energy project when the US hearings, but not the Canadian hearings, had concluded. The Ministry was slow in responding to the access request, did not comply with conditions of a time extension this Office granted the Ministry under s. 10(1)(c), and failed to respond in time, effectively taking an unsanctioned time extension. The Ministry eventually released three disclosure packages over six months, from which it withheld some information under various of the Act’s exceptions. The Ministry was authorized to refuse to give access to the information that it withheld under s. 13(1) or s. 14, but it is ordered under s. 58(3)(c) to refund 50% of the fees charged to the applicant.
Applicant requested records in hands of a named PHSA employee. The PHSA withheld many records on the grounds they are protected by solicitor-client privilege and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. Most records are protected by s. 14 and some information is also protected by s. 22. Small amounts of information are not protected by either exception and must be disclosed.
The applicant requested a particular letter. The PHSA denied access under s. 14. The letter is protected by solicitor-client privilege and s. 14 applies to it.
Applicant requested records related to PHSA’s interactions with external legal counsel. Records are protected by solicitor-client privilege.
The applicant requested records of four specified individuals. The PHSA disclosed records and applied ss. 14 and 22 to other records and information. It also said that one individual was not its employee and another had no responsive records. The PHSA is found to have correctly withheld information and records under ss. 14 and 22.
The Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its destination casino project. The BC Lottery Corporation disclosed some records and withheld and severed others, mainly under ss. 14, 17(1) and 21(1). It also argued that records and information fell outside the scope of the request by virtue of their date or subject matter. Section 14 found to apply but not ss. 17(1) and 21(1). Other records and information found not to be within the scope of the request.
Applicant sought records relating to an Employment Standards Tribunal matter in which it was involved. Ministry is authorized to withhold information under s. 14, no waiver of privilege having occurred. Because its response to the applicant’s request was outside the s. 7 time limit, the Ministry failed to discharge its s. 6(1) duty to assist the applicant. Consistent with past decisions, no order is necessary in that respect.
The City retained a lawyer to investigate a City employee’s allegations of wrongdoing within a City department for the purpose of providing a fact-finding report and legal advice to the City. Resulting report from the lawyer to the City was protected by legal professional privilege and the City was authorized by s. 14 of the Act to refuse to disclose it to the applicant journalist.
Applicant requested records from files of two human rights investigators. VCHA disclosed a number of records and withheld and severed others under ss. 14 and 22 of the Act. VCHA found to have applied s. 14 correctly. VCHA found to have applied s. 22 correctly to some information and records but not to others. VCHA ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply.
The applicant sought records relating to development of a rapid transit line connecting Richmond, Vancouver International Airport and downtown Vancouver. Sections 12(1) and 22(1) require the Premier’s Office to refuse disclosure and ss. 14, 16(1) and 17(1)(e) authorize it to refuse disclosure
Applicant sought access to minutes of in camera Inquiry Committee meetings and listing of actions related to a complaint filed against him. Committee withheld entirety of responsive records under ss. 3(1)(b), 3(1)(h), 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22. Records withheld under s. 3(1)(b) do not meet required criteria. Committee entitled to withhold only substance of deliberations under s. 12(3)(b). Sections 3(1)(h), 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22 found not to apply. Public body ordered to re-consider its decision to withhold under s. 12(3)(b).
Applicant requested access to records related to himself in the public body’s security and infection control areas. PHSA correctly refused access to information under s. 14 and for the most part under s. 22. PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a few items of information withheld under s. 22 and with summary under s. 22(5). A few pages are not in PHSA’s custody or control. Other pages are in PHSA’s control and it is ordered to process them under the Act.
Applicant requested records related to his interactions with a number of named doctors at the PHSA. The PHSA withheld some information under ss. 14 and 22. Applicant objected to decision to withhold information and also questioned the completeness of the PHSA’s response. The PHSA applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases s. 22. The PHSA is ordered to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22. The PHSA did not show that it complied with s. 6(1) in its response and is ordered to do so.
The applicant requested records detailing the operations of ICBC’s Glass Express program, including records relating to suspensions of glass vendors’ rights under the program. ICBC properly applied ss. 14 and 22(1) and, in some places, s. 13(1). Some information withheld under s. 13(1) is ordered disclosed. Information withheld under s. 17(1) is ordered disclosed.
Applicant requested records related to the District’s request for offers regarding a property sale. The District initially withheld several records but, after the sale of the property, disclosed almost all of them. Section 14 applies to the remaining records in dispute
Applicant requested records related to himself. PHSA disclosed large number of records and withheld others under ss. 12(3), 13(1), 14 and 22. Applicant disputed decision to withhold information and also complained about delay in PHSA’s response and records search. PHSA found to have applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases also ss. 13(1) and 22. PHSA found not to have complied with its duties under s. 6(1) and ordered to search again.
Applicant requested a list of all firearms matters that had proceeded to hearing. Only responsive record was a list created by legal counsel to track ongoing appeals. List withheld under s. 14. Record found to be privileged. Ministry found to have met its duty to assist. Ministry not required to create a record as contemplated by s. 6.
The applicant requested information relating to two named lawyers with whom he had past dealings. The Law Society is authorized to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of certain information, is authorized to refuse access to information protected by solicitor-client privilege and is required to refuse access to third-party personal information.
Applicant requested records related to his employment and promotion within UBC. UBC disclosed many records, withheld other records and information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22 and said other records were not relevant to the request. Applicant questioned search adequacy and objected to withholding of information. UBC applied s. 14 properly and, with some exceptions, also ss. 13(1) and 22. UBC searched adequately for responsive records, with one minor exception, for which it was ordered to search again. UBC ordered to disclose some information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22 and to provide a response on some records found to be relevant to request.
The applicant made an access request to the Ministry for records pertaining to
a child custody matter involving her daughter, now an adult. The Ministry released some records
but withheld records contained in the family advocate’s file. Its search for records was adequate.
The Ministry is not authorized to withhold information under s. 14, but s. 22 requires the Ministry
to withhold the same information.
The applicant requested records relating to the amount spent by the provincial
government in the legal defence of a third party. Section 14 authorizes the Ministry to refuse to
disclose information.
Applicant requested records related to her academic appeal. UBC provided records,
withholding other records and information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13(1), 14 and 22. UBC found to have
applied ss. 3(1)(b), and 14 properly and, with one exception, s. 22 as well. UBC ordered to
disclose some personal information related to applicant. Section 13(1) found not to apply in all
cases and UBC ordered to disclose draft letters.
In response to its access request to the FHA, the HEU received electronic copies of
two consultants’ reports respecting possible private development of a new health centre.
The HEU was able to uncover information the FHA believed it had severed from the electronic
copies under s. 17(1). The HEU posted on its website copies of the consultant’s reports with
instructions enabling viewers to recover information the FHA believed had been severed. The
HEU requested a review of the FHA decision to refuse access to information in the consultant’s
reports. The FHA was authorized to refuse access under s. 17(1) and its decision to do so is
confirmed. After the FHA’s faulty severing of information, there is risk of harm under s. 17(1)
against which the FHA is authorized to protect itself by refusing access to the disputed
information.
The applicant requested a copy of an accounting of legal fees the provincial
government has paid on behalf of a third party. Section 14 authorizes the Ministry to refuse to
disclose information.
The applicant requested copies of cheques issued by the Ministry of Finance in
payment of legal fees on behalf of a third party. Section 14 authorizes the Ministry to refuse to
disclose information.
The applicant journalist requested access to records relating to billings by lawyers
acting at public expense for an Air India bombing accused. Section 14 authorizes the Ministry to
refuse to disclose the records, which are privileged, in their entirety. Section 25(1) does not
require disclosure of the privileged information in the public interest.
The applicant sought access to various Law Society records related to complaints he
had made about various lawyers. Order 02-01 and Order No. 260-1998 addressed many of the
records in dispute here and issue estoppel is found to apply to information dealt with in those
decisions. In the case of some but not all of the information in other records, the Law Society is
authorized to refuse to disclose information subject to s. 14 and is required to refuse to disclose
third-party personal information protected by s. 22.
The applicant complained to the College about the conduct of a College member.
The College disclosed 140 records from its complaint file, but refused to disclose, in their
entirety, 19 records. The College has failed to establish that s. 3(1)(b), s. 12(3)(b) or s. 15(2)(b)
apply. It is authorized to refuse disclosure of some information under ss. 13(1) and 14 and is
required to refuse disclosure by s. 22(3)(d) and (g). Section 22(1) does not require the College to
refuse the applicant access to her own personal information.
Section 12(3)(b) authorizes the City to refuse to disclose two records. Sections 13(1)
and 14 authorize the City to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information withheld
under those sections. Section 17(1) does not authorize the City to refuse to disclose information.
The applicant, a journalist, asked UBC for access to records respecting on-campus
supply of goods or services by third-party businesses. UBC decided that ss. 14 and 17(1)
authorize, and that s. 21(1) requires, UBC to withhold a 1998 draft agreement with two banks.
No evidence was provided regarding s. 21(1), nor is there a basis on the face of the disputed
record, or otherwise, to conclude that s. 21(1) applies. Further, neither s. 14 nor s. 17(1)
authorizes UBC to refuse disclosure. Section 14 does apply, however, to notes made by UBC’s
in-house lawyer on two pages of the draft agreement
The applicant sought access to records relating to property assessments conducted by
the BCAA under the Assessment Act. Section 25(1)(b) does not require the BCAA to disclose
them and s. 14 authorizes the BCAA to refuse to disclose the records. The BCAA failed to
discharge its s. 6(1) duty to respond without delay, but its ultimate response means no remedy is
available respecting its late reply. Since the BCAA has not established that its response to the
applicant is complete, it must perform another search for records.
Applicant requested records related to his employment with the AIBC and to records
related to two other employees. The AIBC withheld several records under ss. 14, 17 and 22. Section 14 found to apply to one record. Section 17 found not to apply. Section 22(4)(e) found to apply to the employees’ employment contracts, job descriptions, salary and benefit information, which is ordered disclosed. Sections 22(1) and 22(3)(d) and (g) found to apply to some withheld
information.
The applicant requested records relating to the Ministry’s handling of a complaint that he had made to the Ministry. The Ministry conducted an adequate search for records and is authorized by s. 14 to refuse to disclose information to the applicant.
The applicant requested all records relating to him at the WCRB. The WCRB correctly decided that certain of the responsive records are excluded from the Act’s scope by ss. 3(1)(b) and (c). The WCRB’s search for records was adequate and met its s. 6(1) duty. The WCRB also correctly decided that other records and information were excepted from disclosure by ss. 14 and 22 of the Act.
The applicant requested all records relating to him at the MAG. The MAG’s search for records was adequate and met its s. 6(1) duty. The MAG also correctly decided that other records and information were excepted from disclosure by s. 14 of the Act.
The applicant requested all records relating to him at the MSDL. The MSDL’s initial search for records was not adequate, but its later search efforts met its s. 6(1) duty. The MSDL correctly decided that the one record in dispute is excepted from disclosure by s. 14 of the Act.
The applicant requested access to staff reports to City Council, and to minutes of Council meetings, regarding a City contract with a third party business. The City is not required to disclose information in the public interest under s. 25. The City is authorized by s. 13 to refuse to disclose advice or recommendations in the records and by s. 14 to refuse to disclose information protected by solicitor client privilege.
The applicant insurance adjuster requested copies of two witness statements and an accident diagram, providing the consent of both witnesses in doing so. ICBC refused access under s. 14, citing litigation privilege. ICBC is authorized to withhold the records under s. 14 because they were created when litigation was in reasonable prospect and for the dominant purpose of that anticipated litigation.
The applicant school trustee requested copies of invoices from a law firm that was acting for the School District in a particular litigation matter. The School District was authorized to refuse access under s. 14. The applicant’s position as a trustee of the School District does not give him special rights of access under the Act.
The applicant requested records relating to the College’s accidental disclosure, in 1997, of prescription-related information of two hospital patients. The College initially failed to conduct a reasonable search for records, but corrected that failure by searching again for records during mediation. The College is authorized to withhold a legal opinion under s. 14. The College is required by s. 22(1) to withhold third party personal information.
The applicant made three access requests for records relating to a number of members and former members of the Law Society. The Law Society properly extended the time to respond to the applicant’s third request. The Law Society also properly refused to waive, on the basis the applicant could not afford to pay or that it was otherwise fair to do so, the fee it estimated for the applicant’s second request. The Law Society correctly: decided that draft decisions of its Special Compensation Fund Committee are excluded from the Act’s scope by s. 3(1)(b); determined that records related to an Ombudsman's investigation are excluded from the Act’s scope by s. 3(1)(c); withheld information under s. 19(1)(a); refused to confirm or deny the existence of personal information under s. 8(2)(b); refused to disclose information under s. 14; and determined that it was required by s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose third-party personal information. The Law Society is not required by s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose a small amount of business-related information in one record. The Law Society is not required by s. 25 to disclose information without delay. There is no need to consider the Law Society’s reliance on ss. 13(1), 15 or 17.
Applicant requested copies of records created during School District’s investigation of applicant’s complaint about another employee, i.e., the investigation report, a list of witnesses interviewed, the applicant’s submissions and interview notes, the respondent’s submissions and interview notes and the investigator’s rough notes of witness interviews. The School District is not required by s. 22(1) to withhold information that would identify the employee complained about or the applicant’s allegations. The School District is also not required, in this case, to withhold the investigator’s findings that each of the applicant’s allegations were not substantiated, because, as material in the inquiry confirms, the applicant knows this information. The School District must, however, withhold the third party’s personal information consisting of what witnesses said (or the investigator observed) about the third party’s workplace behaviour or actions, as this is the third party’s employment history. The School District also must withhold information that would identify witnesses who supplied personal information of the applicant or the third party in confidence. The School District must provide the applicant with a summary of that information under s. 22(5).
The applicant requested copies of court decisions relating to firearms matters and a copy of a file relating to a specific case under the Firearms Act (Canada). Applicant also requested a fee waiver relating to another access request. Court file copies of court decisions are not excluded from the Act under s. 3(1)(a) simply because originals or copies are in court files or as records “of a judge”. The Ministry is entitled to withhold the portions of the firearms reference file that it withheld, and the case law collection, under s. 14. The Ministry also could refuse access to the copies of court decisions because they are available for purchase by the public within the meaning of s. 20(1)(a). The Ministry’s refusal of a public interest fee waiver relating to policy records is also upheld, as is its denial of a waiver on the basis of inability to afford the fee.
The applicant, an insured of ICBC, was involved in a car accident. ICBC admitted liability on his part and later settled a personal injury claim brought by the third party. After the settlement, the applicant sought access to claim-related records. ICBC disclosed numerous records, but withheld all or part of others under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1). ICBC not authorized to withhold information under ss. 14 or 17(1), but required to withhold certain third-party personal information under s. 22(1)
Applicant requested records related to communications regarding a legal action between himself, on his son’s behalf, and ICBC. ICBC disclosed records but applicant not satisfied with ICBC’s search. ICBC searched again, disclosed more records and withheld others under s. 14. ICBC found to have misinterpreted request and to have failed to conduct a proper search. ICBC found to have later rectified its failure to interpret the request reasonably, but some records it found and considered still out of scope were in fact subject to the request. ICBC ordered to process additional responsive records. ICBC also found to have withheld records properly under s. 14
Applicant requested records related to calculation of benefits expected after WCB decision. WCB refused disclosure of most information, under ss. 13, 14, 17 and 22. Sections 14 and 17 found not to apply, as WCB has not established that solicitor client privilege applies nor that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm its financial interests. Section 13(1) found not to apply, except for one item, as records do not contain advice or recommendations. Because s. 22(4)(e) applied to information the WCB had withheld under s. 22, that information must be disclosed except for one item to which section 22(3)(g) applies. No waiver of privilege found.
An auto body shop applied for records in the custody of ICBC. The records consisted of internal e-mails and documents relating to the ongoing relationship between the shop and ICBC. ICBC had denied the shop accreditation, resulting in an appeal and revocation of the shop’s vendor number. ICBC did not succeed completely on its application of ss. 13 and 17 to a vast number of records. ICBC is required to demonstrate the information it withheld under s. 13 was created for the purpose of advising or recommending a specific course of action or range of actions or that it so advises or recommends. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interest from disclosure of specific information. ICBC succeeded on its application of s. 14 to records created for the dominant purpose of preparing for, advising on or conducting litigation. ICBC succeeded in its application of s. 15 to certain investigation records. The Material Damage Specialist Fraud Unit’s activities qualified as law enforcement, certain records were part of an actual investigation and ICBC demonstrated a reasonable expectation of harm. ICBC was able to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that disclosure of certain identities could threaten certain individuals’ safety or mental or physical health. Thus s. 19 was accepted for certain identifying information. ICBC properly applied s. 22 to certain third party personal information, but it was not properly applied to ICBC employee names and identities.
In response to the applicant’s request for all records containing personal information about him “at the University”, UVic disclosed many records but withheld portions of records under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14 and 22 of the Act. Applicant alleged that UVic failed to perform its search obligation under s. 6, but UVic was found to have undertaken a reasonable search for records. Section 25 did not require disclosure in the public interest. UVic was authorized to withhold information under ss. 13 and 14 (ss. 3(1)(c) and 22 having been removed from inquiry by the parties’ agreement).
Applicant is entitled to access to account for services rendered by a lawyer to the Board pursuant to an appointment to investigate and report under the Police (Discipline) Regulation.
The applicant sought access to a two-page draft settlement offer regarding small claims litigation between applicant and the GVRD. The GVRD is not authorized to refuse access under s. 14. Litigation privilege did not apply, since letter had been drafted for the purpose of settlement discussions with the applicant and applicant read the letter at a settlement meeting. The fact that the GVRD retained the draft at the end of the meeting did not alter the fact that, consistent with its author’s intent, contents of the draft settlement offer were communicated to the applicant. In any case, disclosure of the draft’s contents to the applicant waived any litigation privilege. Although s. 17 (and others) may provide comparable protection, settlement privilege recognized at common law is not independently incorporated under s. 14 and the GVRD could not invoke it under s. 14.
Applicant sought records from ICBC related to personal injury claims he had made, some of which resulted in litigation. ICBC did not succeed in s. 14 or s. 17 claims for some of the records. ICBC is required in each case to prove application of litigation privilege to each responsive record, by showing that both elements of the common law test for that privilege have been met in relation to each record. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interests from disclosure of specific information, on a record by record basis. ICBC properly claimed s. 14 for contents of defence counsel’s file, which it continued to withhold. ICBC was required by s. 22 to withhold small amounts of third party personal information.
Applicant entitled to access to some records over which City claimed solicitor client privilege, but not others. City provided no evidence to support counsel's assertion that solicitor client privilege applied to certain records. Absent supporting evidence, certain records did not themselves support City's assertions. City entitled to withhold some records under s. 12(3)(b), but not others. City found not to have performed its duty under s. 6 (1) and required to search again for records.
Applicant sought records from ICBC related to personal injury claims he had made, some of which resulted in litigation. ICBC’s responses to applicant, in terms of its reasons for refusal to disclose and descriptions of records, were adequate for the purposes of ss. 6(1) and 8(1), though more detail was desirable. ICBC’s delay in responding was contrary to the Act in relation to one request. After close of inquiry, ICBC abandoned reliance on s. 14 and s. 17 for almost all records. ICBC would not have succeeded in s. 14 or s. 17 claims for released records. ICBC is required in each case, however, to prove application of litigation privilege to each responsive record, by showing that both elements of the common law test for that privilege have been met in relation to each record. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interests from disclosure of specific information, on a record by record basis. ICBC properly claimed s. 14 for contents of defence counsel’s file, which it continued to withhold. ICBC was required by s. 22 to withhold small amounts of third party personal information.
Applicant union sought printed copy of WCB’s electronic annotation of its collective agreement. WCB not justified in withholding entire record, but annotations could be withheld as advice or recommendations under s. 13(1). WCB’s s. 14 case not adequately supported by evidence showing its application to any given part of the record. Sections 21 and 22 not shown to apply to information in record.
Applicant sought public body’s draft memorandum to Crown counsel setting out Criminal Justice Branch policy on the laying of a specific kind of criminal charge. Only some information could properly be withheld as advice or recommendations or information used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but all information in record was protected by solicitor client privilege. Public interest override not triggered.
Applicant sought copies of legal invoices and correspondence between Township employee and Township regarding Township’s payment of employee’s legal fees and requests for payment of such fees. Requested information subject to solicitor client privilege, which had not been waived by client employee. Personal information appropriately withheld from two records.
Applicant requested names of public body staff who allegedly made commitments or promises about payment of funeral expenses for a deceased public body employee. Applicant also sought copy of a legal opinion given regarding payment of funeral expenses. Public body authorized to withhold legal opinion under s. 14. Public body authorized to withhold only some information under s. 14, but not required to withhold identities and positions of public body’s staff under s. 22.
Allegation that public body failed to assist applicant not established. Evidence did not establish disappearance or suppression of requested records. Public body adopted a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the applicant's requests and was justified in applying s. 14 to notes of telephone advice from its lawyer and s. 22 to names of confidential referees. It was permissible for the public body to combine three requests for closely related material for the purpose of calculating 'free' location and retrieval time under s. 75(2)(a) of the Act.
Applicant sought copies of his personnel file, including records of BC Transit's response to the harassment complaints he filed. BC Transit severed information under sections 13 and 22 of the Act. In addition, it withheld 165 pages under Section 14 of the Act. Applicant entitled to 4 pages of information formerly severed under Section 13 and 22. BC Transit appropriately applied sections 13, 22 and 14 to the other records.
Applicant sought access to communications between public body and its lawyers regarding land use bylaws for Galiano Island. Public body refused access under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). Applicant argued that solicitor client privilege did not apply, since lawyers were acting outside normal lawyer role, and that public interest favoured disclosure. Solicitor client privilege held to apply. Fact that lawyers were dealing with planning matters as part of their legal work did not affect this conclusion. Public interest did not require disclosure despite s. 14.
Applicant had complained to College about a physician’s conduct. After College decided not to institute discipline proceedings, applicant sought records of third party expert opinions obtained by College in deciding how to proceed. College not authorized to withhold information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), 15(1)(a) or (c). College not authorized to withhold most information under s. 14. Commissioner has jurisdiction to determine whether privilege has been waived. If s. 14 did apply, no waiver of privilege by College. No other kind of privilege applied to records. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act overrides Medical Practitioners Act. Personal information of third party experts required to be withheld under s. 22(1).
SFU withheld records under s. 14, claiming solicitor client privilege. Applicant argued SFU had not established grounds for privilege claim. Grounds for privilege established by SFU for most, but not all, withheld records. SFU held not to be authorized to withhold all records. Communications not privileged simply because records in SFU’s custody had been copied to a lawyer. Third party personal information in records ordered severed and withheld from applicant.
Applicant sought records relating to him, and a legal opinion about him, in Ministry’s custody. Ministry authorized to withhold information under s. 14. Ministry not authorized to withhold information under s. 17(1), but Ministry required to withhold same information under s. 22.
Applicant sought records relating to his family’s involvement with the Ministry and its predecessor agency. Applicant also sought Ministry records relating to complaints lodged by applicant about his daughter. Ministry disclosed some records (including applicant’s personal information) and withheld third party personal information. Ministry required under both CFCSA and Act to refuse to disclose information. Ministry entitled to consider relevant circumstance of hostile relations between applicant and daughter. Applicant’s assertion of need for information for legal proceedings insufficient to favour disclosure.
Applicant sought legal costs associated with government complaint to
British Columbia Press Council. Ministry refused to disclose information under s. 14
(solicitor client privilege). Ministry authorized to withhold information.
Applicant sought legal costs associated with gaming-related legal issues.
Ministry refused to disclose information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). Ministry
noted litigation was still underway. Ministry authorized to withhold information.
Applicants have practical incentives to cooperate with, and assist, public bodies by
making specific and clear requests wherever reasonably possible.
Applicant made a series of requests for access to his personal information.
UBC disclosed large amounts of information, but withheld some third party personal
information, information subject to solicitor client privilege, and advice or
recommendations. UBC was authorized to withhold privileged information and some
advice or recommendations. UBC was required to withhold third party personal
information that would identify individuals who gave confidential evaluations of the
applicant, but UBC ordered to comply with s. 22(5) duty to provide the applicant with
summaries of those evaluations. UBC was found to have fulfilled its duty to assist the
applicant. No evidence of bias on the part of UBC employees handling the applicant’s
access requests at the same time as appeal processes involving the applicant.
WCB withheld records dealing with WCB policy on payment of interest to
employers when refunding to employers certain contribution overpayments. WCB
withheld information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 17(1). WCB authorized to withhold record
under first two sections, but not s. 17(1). No reasonable expectation of harm to WCB’s
financial or economic interests on basis information might be used by third parties in
litigation against WCB. Section 13(1) in any case found to protect information to which
WCB applied s. 17(1).
Davey Tree Expert Co. of Canada Limited (Davey) made a request to the City of Nanaimo (City), under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, for records related to the City’s 2018 request for proposals for tree services. The City disclosed some information but withheld its evaluation records in full under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendation) and s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interest of public body). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply at all. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to some of the information but also found that the City had not exercised discretion properly in deciding to withhold this information. The adjudicator therefore ordered the City to exercise its discretion regarding this information, in light of specified factors.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Vancouver (City) for access to information related to the development of new rental housing. The City relied on ss. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests) and 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) to withhold information from the applicant. The adjudicator determined the City was not authorized under s. 17(1) or required under s. 21(1) to withhold the information in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the City to give the applicant access to the information in dispute.
An applicant requested from the Columbia Basin Trust (CBT) information about the terms and conditions for the provision of energy between the CBT, the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and Powerex Corporation. The CBT withheld information under ss. 15(1)(l) (harm to a system or property) and 17(1) (harm to the financial interests of a public body) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) applied to most of the information but that s. 15(1)(l) did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the CBT to disclose the information to which it had applied s. 15(1)(l) and some information to which it had applied s. 17(1). The adjudicator also considered the application of s. 61(2)(c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which excludes certain records from the scope of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and determined that it did not apply.
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.
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested the British Columbia Railway Company (Company) provide access to an agreement involving Tsal’álh (formerly known as Seton Lake Indian Band) and a local passenger rail service. The Company refused access citing various provisions of FIPPA, including s. 17(1) (disclosure harmful to financial or economic interests). The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) review the Company’s decision and the matter was later forwarded to inquiry. During the inquiry, the parties received approval from the OIPC to add s. 3(5)(b) (record not related to the public body’s business) and s. 25(1)(b) (disclosure clearly in the public interest) to the inquiry. Tsal’álh was also invited by the OIPC to participate in the inquiry as an appropriate person and made submissions. The adjudicator found s. 3(5)(b) did not apply, therefore the requested record was subject to Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator then determined the Company correctly applied s. 17(1) to the information in the requested record and, therefore, it was not necessary to consider the other FIPPA exceptions relied on by the Company. Finally, the adjudicator concluded the Company was not required under s. 25(1)(b) to disclose any information in the requested record.
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 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.
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 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).
The applicant requested all contracts and service awards between the City of Richmond (the City) and the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for 2020 and 2021. The City identified a single agreement that was responsive to the applicant’s request, but withheld it in its entirety under ss. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 17(1) (harm to public body’s financial or economic interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that neither section applied, and ordered the City to disclose the agreement to the applicant.
A journalist made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to BC Hydro for access to records related to Site C project board meetings. BC Hydro 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 most of the information in dispute and ordered BC Hydro to disclose the information it was not authorized to withhold under s. 17(1).
An applicant submitted a request to the BC Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) for copies of appendices to a Site C Quarterly Progress Report. BC Hydro responded to the request withholding some information under s. 17(1) (disclosure harmful to a public body’s financial interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) applied to the information and confirmed the decision of BC Hydro to withhold it.
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).
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.
The applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to a list of all properties owned by the City of Burnaby (City). The City released the responsive record but withheld some information in the record under s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the City was not authorized to withhold any information under s. 17(1).
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the British Columbia Investment Management
Corporation (BCI) for copies of 2014-2015 BCI employee engagement and satisfaction
survey reports, including results and analysis. BCI withheld the responsive records and
information on the basis of common law case-by-case privilege and ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body),
21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a
third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that Division 2 of
Part 2 of FIPPA is a complete code of exceptions to disclosure abrogating case-by-case
privilege, so BCI was not entitled to rely on that privilege as an access exception. The
adjudicator then determined that BCI was authorized to withhold most of the disputed
information under s. 13(1), but that it was not authorized or required to withhold the
balance of the information under the other exceptions BCI applied.
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.
An applicant requested a copy of the proposal the City of Langford (City) submitted regarding Amazon’s plan to open a second headquarters in North America. The City refused to disclose information in the responsive records under s. 17(1) (harm the financial interests of a public body). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to the information at issue and ordered the City to disclose the information.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to reviews undertaken by the BC Assessment Authority (BC Assessment) of its Vancouver Island office facilities. BC Assessment provided partial access to the records withholding information under s. 17(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined BC Assessment was not authorized to withhold this information since its disclosure could not reasonably be expected to harm BC Assessment’s financial or economic interests in accordance with s. 17(1).
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.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a copy of an audit conducted by the Fraser Health Authority. The audit focused on several companies that the Fraser Health Authority contracted to provide home care support services. Fraser Health Authority refused to disclose all of the information in the record under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and parts of the record under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 17(1) (harm to
a public body’s financial or economic interests) of FIPPA. The applicant claimed the record should be disclosed under s. 25(1)(b) since the disclosure is clearly in the public interest. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to refuse access to the record
under s. 14 and concluded s. 25(1)(b) did not apply in the circumstances. The
adjudicator did not find it necessary to also consider whether the Ministry was authorized to withhold information in the record under ss. 13(1) and 17(1).
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).
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo), the Evergreen Line and the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) provided partial access to the records by withholding information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1)(a) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (disclosure harmful to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 12(1), 14 and 22(1), but was not authorized or required to withhold the remaining information in dispute.
The public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file
under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to
public body’s financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply because the records had been in existence for 10 or more years, so s. 13(3) was engaged. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision, in part, to refuse access under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1) and ordered the public body to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal information. The public body refused access to information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that ss. 13,14 and 22 applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 17 did not. The adjudicator ordered the public body to disclose a small amount of information to the applicant.
An applicant made seven requests to five public bodies for access to records relating to an identified mining project. The public bodies withheld information in the records under a number of exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the public bodies applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the public bodies were authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(1)(cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a system), 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party
personal privacy). However, the adjudicator found that some of the withheld information
did not fall within the claimed exceptions, and ordered the public bodies to disclose that information to the applicant.
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 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.
An applicant requested information related to a specific motor vehicle accident claim from ICBC. ICBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several exceptions to access in FIPPA. At inquiry, the adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision to apply these FIPPA exceptions to most of the information in dispute and ordered ICBC to disclose the rest to the applicant.
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).
An applicant requested access to records related to meetings between the Ministry of Health and representatives of pharmaceutical companies. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body or government) applied to some of the information. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to other information and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the applicant.
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 the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA) requested access to emails which mention his name. VCHA disclosed emails which the employee had received or sent or on which he had been copied. It withheld other emails under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that s. 13(1) also did not apply to some of the information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the rest of the information and confirmed VCHA’s decision to withhold this information.
The applicant requested records relating to WorkSafeBC’s settlement with a former WorkSafeBC employee. WorkSafeBC identified a Memorandum of Settlement as responsive but withheld it on the basis of common law settlement privilege and ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 17(1) (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body). The adjudicator found that WorkSafeBC was authorized to withhold the record on the basis of settlement privilege.
An applicant requested development permit drawings for a proposed development in the Township of Langley (Langley). Langley denied access to the
drawings under ss. 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that neither exception applied and ordered Langley to disclose the drawings to the applicant.
The applicant requested access to the Burrard Station East Entrance
Concept Design Report. TransLink refused to disclose parts of the record on the basis of
ss. 13(1), 17(1) and 15(1)(l) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The adjudicator found that TransLink was not authorized to withhold information in
dispute under ss. 13(1) and 17(1) but was authorized under s. 15(1)(l) to withhold some of the information in dispute.
An employee requested his personnel file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The City of Surrey (City) disclosed many records but also withheld information related to its investigation of his off-duty conduct under several exceptions in FIPPA: ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations); 15(1) (harm to law enforcement); 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations); 17(1) (harm to public body?s financial or economic interests); 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety); and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 16(1)(b) applied to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that ss. 15(1)(a) and (d), 17(1), 19(1)(a) and (b) and 22(1) did not apply to the remaining withheld information and ordered that the City disclose this information to the employee.
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.
A journalist requested access to records about the Site C project. BC Hydro disclosed some records but refused to disclose information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) and 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 17 applied to some of the information, but ss. 19(1)(a) and 22 did not apply to any information. It was not necessary to consider whether s. 14 applied. BC Hydro was ordered to give the applicant access to some of the information.
An applicant requested access to records about a meeting between the former Minister of Natural Gas Development and executives of a company proposing to build a liquefied natural gas processing and export facility. The Ministry disclosed records to the applicant, but withheld some information in them pursuant to exceptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator disagreed with the applicant’s claim that the Ministry was required to disclose the information under s. 25 (disclosure in public interest). The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body) and 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) applied to most of the information but s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) did not. The Ministry was ordered to give the applicant access to some of the information in dispute.
The applicant requested the names of all donors who donated over $3,000
to the University of Victoria between October 1, 2015 and September 15, 2016, along
with the amount they donated. The University provided some information to the
applicant, but withheld other information pursuant to ss. 17(1) (harm to financial
interests), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party), and s. 22 (unreasonable
invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the University was
authorized under s. 17 of FIPPA to withhold some of the information and required by
s. 22 to refuse to disclose other information. A small amount of information was ordered
to be disclosed to the applicant. Given the findings, it was not necessary to also consider
s. 21.
An applicant 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.
An applicant requested a copy of a report on options for replacing New Westminster Secondary School. The School District disclosed the report in severed form, withholding information under s. 17(1) (harm to public body’s financial interests). The adjudicator confirmed the School District’s decision to withhold the information on the grounds that potential bid proponents could use the information in preparing their bids, to the detriment of the School District’s financial interests.
An applicant requested records related to a residency investigation regarding him and his family. The Ministry denied access to information under ss. 15(1)(c) (harm to effectiveness of investigative techniques and procedures), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system), 17(1) (harm to financial interests) and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(c) applied to some information but not to other information, including information which had already been disclosed. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply at all. The applicant was not interested in the information withheld under ss. 15(1)(l) and 22(1) and it was therefore not necessary to consider these exceptions.
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
A journalist requested access to the contract between PavCo and TED
Conferences for the March 2014 Ted Conference. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to the withheld information and ordered PavCo to disclose it to the journalist.
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 asked the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for records relating to an avalanche program. The Ministry withheld some of the information on the basis that it revealed policy advice or recommendations under s. 13, that the information was privileged under s. 14, and that its disclosure would be harmful to the government’s financial or economic interests under s. 17 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse access to information under ss. 13 and 14, but not under s. 17.
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 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 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.
The applicant requested records about the new roof at BC Place Stadium. PavCo withheld some of the information in responsive records on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body (s. 17 of FIPPA) and that disclosure would be harmful to the business interests of a third party (s. 21). The adjudicator determined that PavCo was not authorized to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 17 and that it was not required to refuse to disclose any of the information it withheld under s. 21. The adjudicator also determined that s. 25 applied to some of the information PavCo withheld under s. 21 because disclosure is clearly in the public interest and ordered PavCo to disclose that information forthwith.
A journalist requested records relating to medications for the treatment of Adult Macular Degeneration. The Ministries withheld portions of the requested information under ss. 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 of FIPPA. The Assistant Commissioner ordered the public bodies to disclose parts of the withheld information, authorized the public bodies to withhold parts of the withheld information under s. 13, 14, 16, and 17 of FIPPA, and required the public bodies to refuse to disclose parts of the withheld information under ss. 21 and 22 of FIPPA.
A journalist requested executive summaries of internal audit reports. The PHSA withheld five audit summaries in their entirety under ss. 12(3)(b) and 13(1) of FIPPA. The PHSA also applied s. 17(1) of FIPPA to three of the five audit summaries. The adjudicator found that disclosure would not reveal the substance of deliberations of a meeting of the Board of Directors under s. 12(3)(b), because the Board did not have the statutory authority to hold the meetings in the absence of the public. The adjudicator also found that disclosure could not be reasonably expected to cause the PHSA to suffer financial harm under s. 17(1). The adjudicator found that s. 13(1)(2)(g) applied to two of the audit summaries, as they were final audits of efficiency or performance of PHSA, or one of its programs or policies. Therefore, s. 13(1) did not apply to those two audit summaries. Section 13(1) did apply to advice and recommendations within the other three audit summaries, but not to those records in their entirety. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of parts of the three audit summaries and the other two audit summaries in their entirety.
An applicant requested from the City a copy of an operational review report written by Sierra, a third-party service provider. The City withheld portions of the Report under ss. 17(1) and 21(1) arguing that disclosure would reasonably be expected to cause financial harm to the City and Sierra. Neither exception applies. In its submission, Sierra consented to the disclosure of the information in accordance with s. 21(3)(a). The City had failed to establish that disclosure would be reasonably expected to cause it financial or economic harm under s. 17(1). The Report does not constitute a plan relating to the management of personnel or administration of the City under s. 17(1)(c). The City had failed to establish that disclosure would harm its negotiating position under s. 17(1)(f). The City must disclose the entire report.
The applicant requested data from the Ministry relating to information gathered from fish farms under the Sea Lice Program and Fish Health Program. The Ministry refused the request on the basis that disclosure could deprive researchers of priority of publication under s. 17(2) of FIPPA. The Ministry demonstrated that two experienced researchers were writing scientific papers for peer-reviewed journals and disclosure of the data could result in the papers not being published. The Ministry was authorized under s. 17(2) to withhold the data. The applicant also argued that s. 17(3) of FIPPA required the disclosure of the data as it consisted of the results of product testing. Section 17(3) found not to require disclosure of information subject to 17(2).
CUPE requested copies of three leases for BC Assessment?s offices in Penticton, Vernon and Kelowna, as well as schedules to a service agreement. BC Assessment originally applied ss. 15(1)(l), 17(1), 21(1) and 22(1) to portions of the three leases. During mediation and the early stages of the inquiry, most of the issues and records fell away, leaving only the application of s. 17(1) to the Kelowna lease. BC Assessment provided no evidentiary basis to support the application of s. 17(1). This exception is found not to apply and BC Assessment is ordered to disclose the severed information in the Kelowna lease.
The public body was not authorized by s. 17(1) or required by s. 21(1) to refuse to disclose the pricing terms in an addendum and change order to a multi-year contract for housekeeping services in hospitals. The public body is ordered to provide access to the disputed information.
VCHA was not authorized by s. 17(1) or required by s. 21(1) to refuse to give access to the price schedule or the penalty provision in a contract for cleaning services in health care facilities. It is ordered to provide access to the entire contract, a presentation to its board of directors and its business case for the privatization of cleaning services.
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld and severed others under ss. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22. Ministry required to withhold information under s. 12(1) and authorized to withhold information under s. 13(1) and s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information that it withheld under s. 17 and the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Ministry also ordered to conduct another search for responsive records.
Applicant requested his ICBC file related to his claim regarding the loss of his motorhome and its contents by fire. ICBC disclosed some records but refused access to others, including fire investigation records. Sections 14, 15(1)(a) and 17(1) found not to apply. Section 22(1) found not to apply to a small amount of information.
The Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its destination casino project. The BC Lottery Corporation disclosed some records and withheld and severed others, mainly under ss. 14, 17(1) and 21(1). It also argued that records and information fell outside the scope of the request by virtue of their date or subject matter. Section 14 found to apply but not ss. 17(1) and 21(1). Other records and information found not to be within the scope of the request.
Firefighters’ union requested copy of consultant’s report on labour relations within City fire and rescue service. City disclosed report with portions severed under ss. 17 and 22. Section 17 does not apply. Section 22 applies to some but not all information. City ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply
The applicant sought records relating to development of a rapid transit line connecting Richmond, Vancouver International Airport and downtown Vancouver. Sections 12(1) and 22(1) require the Premier’s Office to refuse disclosure and ss. 14, 16(1) and 17(1)(e) authorize it to refuse disclosure
The applicant requested access to records disclosing telephone numbers called by the Premier from his private lines during a specified period. Section 17(1) does not authorize the Ministry to refuse disclosure. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to refuse disclosure and severance under s. 4(2) is not required.
The applicant requested records relating to BC Hydro’s commitment to offset 50% of
increased greenhouse gas emissions from new Vancouver Island gas-fired electricity generating
plants. Sections 13 and 17 of the Act authorize BC Hydro to refuse to disclose information in the
records.
Section 12(3)(b) authorizes the City to refuse to disclose two records. Sections 13(1)
and 14 authorize the City to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information withheld
under those sections. Section 17(1) does not authorize the City to refuse to disclose information.
The BCNU sought access to two contracts for nursing services at a correctional
centre. The Ministry withheld some contract price information under s. 17(1) and some under
s. 21(1). The third-party contractor argued that s. 21(1) applied to all of the disputed information.
The exceptions claimed do not authorize or require the Ministry to refuse to disclose the disputed
information. The Ministry has not established a reasonable expectation of harm in relation to
information withheld under s. 17(1). Information withheld under s. 21(1) falls under s. 21(1)(a)
and (c), but requirements of s. 21(1)(b) are not met
The applicant First Nation requested access to appraisal reports and supporting documentation for parcels of land included in an offer made by British Columbia and Canada to the First Nation during treaty negotiations. The Ministry is not required by s. 25(1)(b) to disclose the disputed information to the applicant First Nation. The Ministry is required by s. 12(1) and is authorized by s. 17(1)(e) to refuse to disclose the disputed information. The Ministry is not authorized to refuse disclosure under s. 16(1)
The applicant, an insured of ICBC, was involved in a car accident. ICBC admitted liability on his part and later settled a personal injury claim brought by the third party. After the settlement, the applicant sought access to claim-related records. ICBC disclosed numerous records, but withheld all or part of others under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1). ICBC not authorized to withhold information under ss. 14 or 17(1), but required to withhold certain third-party personal information under s. 22(1)
Applicant requested records related to calculation of benefits expected after WCB decision. WCB refused disclosure of most information, under ss. 13, 14, 17 and 22. Sections 14 and 17 found not to apply, as WCB has not established that solicitor client privilege applies nor that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm its financial interests. Section 13(1) found not to apply, except for one item, as records do not contain advice or recommendations. Because s. 22(4)(e) applied to information the WCB had withheld under s. 22, that information must be disclosed except for one item to which section 22(3)(g) applies. No waiver of privilege found.
An auto body shop applied for records in the custody of ICBC. The records consisted of internal e-mails and documents relating to the ongoing relationship between the shop and ICBC. ICBC had denied the shop accreditation, resulting in an appeal and revocation of the shop’s vendor number. ICBC did not succeed completely on its application of ss. 13 and 17 to a vast number of records. ICBC is required to demonstrate the information it withheld under s. 13 was created for the purpose of advising or recommending a specific course of action or range of actions or that it so advises or recommends. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interest from disclosure of specific information. ICBC succeeded on its application of s. 14 to records created for the dominant purpose of preparing for, advising on or conducting litigation. ICBC succeeded in its application of s. 15 to certain investigation records. The Material Damage Specialist Fraud Unit’s activities qualified as law enforcement, certain records were part of an actual investigation and ICBC demonstrated a reasonable expectation of harm. ICBC was able to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that disclosure of certain identities could threaten certain individuals’ safety or mental or physical health. Thus s. 19 was accepted for certain identifying information. ICBC properly applied s. 22 to certain third party personal information, but it was not properly applied to ICBC employee names and identities.
Applicant requested a copy of a 1997 exclusive sponsorship agreement between IDEA, a society the members of which are educational bodies, and Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. Capilano College initially denied access to most of the agreement under s. 17(1) and s. 21(1), but later disclosed further portions. Section 25 found not to require disclosure in the public interest. Remaining withheld portions of the agreement required to be disclosed because s. 17(1) and s. 21(1) requirements not met.
BC Hydro withheld information from the OPEIU respecting a proposed split of BC Hydro’s existing pension plan into two plans. BC Hydro is not entitled to withhold information under s. 13(1), as the information did not qualify as, or implicitly reveal, advice or recommendations. BC Hydro authorized to withhold information it withheld under s. 17(1), since its disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm BC Hydro’s financial interests.
Applicant sought records from ICBC related to personal injury claims he had made, some of which resulted in litigation. ICBC’s responses to applicant, in terms of its reasons for refusal to disclose and descriptions of records, were adequate for the purposes of ss. 6(1) and 8(1), though more detail was desirable. ICBC’s delay in responding was contrary to the Act in relation to one request. After close of inquiry, ICBC abandoned reliance on s. 14 and s. 17 for almost all records. ICBC would not have succeeded in s. 14 or s. 17 claims for released records. ICBC is required in each case, however, to prove application of litigation privilege to each responsive record, by showing that both elements of the common law test for that privilege have been met in relation to each record. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interests from disclosure of specific information, on a record by record basis. ICBC properly claimed s. 14 for contents of defence counsel’s file, which it continued to withhold. ICBC was required by s. 22 to withhold small amounts of third party personal information.
SFU authorized to deny access to most of two insurance policies issued to SFU by an insurer partly owned by SFU. Wording of most of the policies was proprietary to the insurer. Disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm SFU as contemplated by s. 17(1), through increased premiums for insurance. Disclosure also could reasonably be expected to harm significantly the insurer’s competitive position as contemplated by s. 21(1). Some information – such as premium amounts, policy periods and limits – could not be withheld under either section.
Journalist requested access to records disclosing interest rate payable on, and term of, government loan to third party private business. Ministry not authorized to withhold information under s. 17(1). Feared impact on possible future negotiations with other borrowers did not create reasonable expectation of harm to government’s financial or economic interests. Ministry not required to withhold information under s. 21(1). Interest rate and loan term were negotiated terms, not information “supplied” to Ministry by third party business. Evidence also not sufficient to establish reasonable expectation of significant harm to third party or undue financial loss or gain. Disclosure would not result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Ministry.
UBC refused to disclose to applicant internal UBC correspondence and
communications. UBC authorized to refuse to disclose portions of records under s. 13.
UBC not authorized to withhold information under s. 17. Legislation recognizes no
independent ‘zone of confidentiality’; express provisions of Act must be relied on as
appropriate in circumstances of each case. UBC authorized to withhold privileged
communications under s. 14. Some personal financial information ordered severed and
withheld.
WCB withheld records dealing with WCB policy on payment of interest to
employers when refunding to employers certain contribution overpayments. WCB
withheld information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 17(1). WCB authorized to withhold record
under first two sections, but not s. 17(1). No reasonable expectation of harm to WCB’s
financial or economic interests on basis information might be used by third parties in
litigation against WCB. Section 13(1) in any case found to protect information to which
WCB applied s. 17(1).
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 applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Vancouver (City) for access to information related to the development of new rental housing. The City relied on ss. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests) and 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) to withhold information from the applicant. The adjudicator determined the City was not authorized under s. 17(1) or required under s. 21(1) to withhold the information in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the City to give the applicant access to the information in dispute.
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). 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 access to reports that the City of Port Alberni (City) received from SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. (SLR) about land that the City sought to purchase from Western Forest Products Inc. (WFP). SLR and WFP objected to disclosure, arguing that s. 21(1) (disclosure harmful to a third party’s business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) applies to most of the information in the reports. After considering SLR and WFP’s positions, the City released a small amount of information while severing most of the information under s. 21(1). The adjudicator determined that the City is required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the disputed information under s. 21(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to the applicant.
The 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.
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 all contracts and service awards between the City of Richmond (the City) and the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for 2020 and 2021. The City identified a single agreement that was responsive to the applicant’s request, but withheld it in its entirety under ss. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 17(1) (harm to public body’s financial or economic interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that neither section applied, and ordered the City to disclose the agreement to the applicant.
The applicant requested information from the City of Vancouver related to the rezoning of the property surrounding Crofton Manor, a senior’s care facility in the City. The City disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under s. 21 in part, and its decision under s. 22 in full, and ordered the City to disclose some information incorrectly withheld under s. 21 to the applicant.
An applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report prepared for the City of Revelstoke (City). The investigation report was partially about the applicant. The City provided the applicant with a copy of the report, but withheld some information in it under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 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 City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
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 applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to the asset purchase agreement (Agreement) by which FHA acquired the business assets of a third party. FHA decided it was required to disclose the Agreement, except for some information which FHA and the third party agreed should be withheld under s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision, arguing that the entire Agreement should be withheld under s. 21(1) (disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party). The adjudicator confirmed FHA’s decision that it is not required to refuse to disclose the disputed information under s. 21(1).
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.
The applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
The applicant requested information about short-term rental accommodation
and Airbnb in the City of Vancouver. The City refused access to the requested
information under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 19(1) (harm to individual safety), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to a small amount of the
information under ss. 15(1)(f), 19(1)(a) and 21(1). However, none of the exceptions applied to the rest of the disputed information and the City was ordered to disclose it to the applicant.
An applicant requested BC Pavilion Corporation provide access to its
stadium use agreement with the Canadian Soccer Association for the FIFA Women’s
World Cup Canada 2015. BC Pavilion Corporation refused to disclose parts of the record
under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator ordered BC Pavilion Corporation to disclose
the information to the applicant because s. 21(1) did not apply.
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 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 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).
The applicant requested access to correspondence between the Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General and a number of online gaming companies. One gaming company argued disclosure of the information would harm its business interests within the meaning of s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met and ordered the Ministry to disclose the disputed information.
An applicant requested records related to Metro Vancouver?s permit authorizing emission from a steel galvanizing plant. Order F18-07 held that Metro Vancouver was required to withhold the information under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant subsequently claimed the records should be disclosed under s. 25 (disclosure in the public interest). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply.
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.
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.
An applicant requested access to records about a meeting between the former Minister of Natural Gas Development and executives of a company proposing to build a liquefied natural gas processing and export facility. The Ministry disclosed records to the applicant, but withheld some information in them pursuant to exceptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator disagreed with the applicant’s claim that the Ministry was required to disclose the information under s. 25 (disclosure in public interest). The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body) and 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) applied to most of the information but s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) did not. The Ministry was ordered to give the applicant access to some of the information in dispute.
The Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services refused a journalist access to attachments to its contract with a third party related to the Okanagan Correctional Centre on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the third party’s business interests. Order 16-49 held that s. 21 did not apply and ordered the Ministry to disclose the information in dispute. The Ministry filed a petition for judicial review of that decision. The British Columbia Supreme Court quashed the decision and remitted the matter back, and this is the resulting decision. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was required to withhold some of the information in dispute pursuant to s. 21(1).
The applicant requested a copy of a contract between a towing company and the City for towing and storage services. The City disclosed the contract but withheld revenue sharing fees under s. 21(1) of FIPPA (harm to the business interests of the towing company). The adjudicator found that the withheld information was not “supplied in confidence” as required by s. 21(1) and the City was required to disclose the entire contract.
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.
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.
An applicant requested a review of a decision made by the Town of Gibsons to refuse access to information in a record involving the Gibsons Public Market. The Town of Gibsons argued disclosure of the information would harm a third party?s 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 Town of Gibsons to disclose the withheld information to the applicant.
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).
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).
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.
A commercial real estate services company requested a review of the Ministry of Citizens' Services (formerly known as the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services) decision to disclose a part of its contract for real estate brokerage services. The company argued disclosure of the information would harm its business interests within the meaning of s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met and ordered the Ministry to disclose the disputed information.
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.
An applicant requested access to records about a contract with Stericycle for the disposal of biomedical waste. The Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) decided to disclose the responsive records, which were an information sheet about a contract between HealthPRO and Stericycle and an expired contract between Stericycle and the PHSA and other BC health authorities. HealthPRO and Stericycle objected to this decision, arguing that s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) applied to the two records. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the records and required the PHSA to disclose them to the applicant.
A journalist requested access to the contract between PavCo and TED
Conferences for the March 2014 Ted Conference. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to the withheld information and ordered PavCo to disclose it to the journalist.
An applicant requested access to vendors’ submissions in response to ICBC’s Request for Expressions of Interest #2011-006 (providing “bio hazardous vehicle cleaning” services) and any contracts with vendors for providing those services. ICBC decided to disclose BioSolutions Inc.’s Expression of Interest, withholding some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). ICBC also decided to disclose the resulting contract with BioSolutions. BioSolutions objected to the disclosure of both records. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) does not apply to the information which ICBC decided to disclose and ordered ICBC to disclose it to the applicant.
A journalist requested attachments to the contract between Plenary Justice Okanagan and the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services for the design, construction, financing and maintenance of the Okanagan Correctional Centre. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to the information in the attachments because it was not “supplied” but negotiated. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the attachments to the journalist.
The BC Shorthand Reporters Association (“BCSRA”) requested access to the service agreement for court reporting services between ICBC and Premiere Verbatim Reporting (“PVR”). PVR objected to disclosure of pricing information in the agreement, on the grounds that disclosure could harm its business interests under s. 21(1). The adjudicator found that the pricing information was PVR’s financial information, but that it had not been “supplied” to ICBC for the purposes of s. 21(1)(b). It was therefore not necessary to consider whether the pricing information had been supplied “in confidence” under s. 21(1)(b), nor whether its disclosure could harm PVR’s business interests under s. 21(1)(c). The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose the pricing information to BCSRA.
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.
Dynasty Plus Ltd. requested a third party review of the Ministry of International Trade and Ministry Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism’s decision to disclose a contract and its amendments between the Government of British Columbia and Dynasty. Dynasty argued disclosure of the contract and its 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) nor could disclosure of the records reasonably be expected to result in one of the harms set out in s. 21(1)(c) of FIPPA.
Dynasty Plus Ltd. 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 contract amendments between the Government of British Columbia and Dynasty. Dynasty argued disclosure of the two 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 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.
The applicant requested records detailing payments made by the City of Surrey to the Washington Speakers Bureau. The City withheld payment amounts from a chart, invoices and requisition forms 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.
The applicant requested records about the new roof at BC Place Stadium. PavCo withheld some of the information in responsive records on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body (s. 17 of FIPPA) and that disclosure would be harmful to the business interests of a third party (s. 21). The adjudicator determined that PavCo was not authorized to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 17 and that it was not required to refuse to disclose any of the information it withheld under s. 21. The adjudicator also determined that s. 25 applied to some of the information PavCo withheld under s. 21 because disclosure is clearly in the public interest and ordered PavCo to disclose that information forthwith.
The City of Vancouver awarded a contract for pay-by-phone parking services following a request for proposals. The applicant requested a list of RFP proponents, including their identities and the value of each their proposals. The City created a record in response but withheld some information related to the value of each proposal and information that disclosed the term of the previous pay-by-phone parking services contract it awarded because it believed disclosure would be harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body (s. 17(1)(d) and (f) of FIPPA) and harmful to the business interests of a third party (s. 21(1) of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that these sections do not apply and ordered the City to disclose the information.
The applicant requested proposals submitted in response to a District of Mission RFP for gravel extraction. At the time of the inquiry, no contract had been awarded in response to the RFP. The District withheld the proposals under s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator required the District to continue to refuse access to most of the information in the proposals but to disclose information that is publicly available or is of a general nature.
The British Columbia Safety Authority withheld a bridge inspection report from a journalist on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to a railway company’s business interests. The adjudicator was not satisfied that disclosure of the report would be harmful and found that s. 21 of FIPPA did not apply.
A journalist requested records related to the Provincial Capital Commission’s request for proposals to lease the CPR Steamship Terminal Building in Victoria’s inner harbour. Information was withheld under ss. 13(1), 15(1)(l), 21(1) and 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the majority of the information withheld under s. 13(1) was not advice and recommendations, so it must be disclosed. Regarding s. 15(1)(l), the public body failed to establish the disclosure of architectural drawings could reasonably be expected to harm the building’s security, so they must be disclosed. Regarding s. 21(1), there was no evidence of harm that would result from disclosure of the withheld financial information, and the adjudicator directed that it be provided to the applicant. Finally, the adjudicator ordered disclosure of some of the information that had been withheld under s. 22(1) because it was either not personal information or because disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy.
The applicant requested a copy of the successful proposal and the signed contract issued by the District for garbage, recycling and yard waste services. The District disclosed most of the records but withheld pricing information under s. 21(1) as harmful to the business interests of the successful proponent. The adjudicator found that although the information withheld in both the contract and the proposal was commercial or financial information, only the information in the proposal was “supplied in confidence” as required by s. 21(1). The adjudicator went on to find that the District had failed to establish that disclosure of the information withheld in the proposal and the contract could reasonably be expected to result in the harms in s. 21(1)(c)(i) and (iii).
The ICBA requested information about union pension plans filed with FICOM, which FICOM decided to disclose. The Trustees of the pension plans requested a review of the decision of FICOM on the basis that s. 21(1) of FIPPA applied. The Assistant Commissioner found that the Trustees and the Unions had not demonstrated that disclosure would cause significant harm to their competitive position or interfere significantly in their negotiating position under s. 21(1)(c)(i) of FIPPA; or cause them undue financial loss under s. 21(1)(c)(iii). The Assistant Commissioner required FICOM to disclose the information.
A journalist requested records relating to medications for the treatment of Adult Macular Degeneration. The Ministries withheld portions of the requested information under ss. 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 of FIPPA. The Assistant Commissioner ordered the public bodies to disclose parts of the withheld information, authorized the public bodies to withhold parts of the withheld information under s. 13, 14, 16, and 17 of FIPPA, and required the public bodies to refuse to disclose parts of the withheld information under ss. 21 and 22 of FIPPA.
A reporter requested third party records obtained by the coroner in an investigation into the death of an Olympic luge athlete. The BC Coroners Service withheld the records under s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The Commissioner found that s. 21(1) of FIPPA did not apply to the records because BCCS and the third parties failed to demonstrate the harm in disclosing them. The Commissioner ordered BCCS to disclose the records.
An applicant requested the traffic management plan and any permits that the Ministry issued in relation to the Whistler GranFondo 2010. The Ministry withheld the traffic management plan and other information under s. 21(1) of FIPPA, on the grounds that disclosure would harm the business interests of TOIT Events. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) of FIPPA did not apply to the information, because TOIT had not supplied the information to the Ministry in confidence and TOIT failed to demonstrate the potential harm in disclosing it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose all of the information.
An applicant requested from the City a copy of an operational review report written by Sierra, a third-party service provider. The City withheld portions of the Report under ss. 17(1) and 21(1) arguing that disclosure would reasonably be expected to cause financial harm to the City and Sierra. Neither exception applies. In its submission, Sierra consented to the disclosure of the information in accordance with s. 21(3)(a). The City had failed to establish that disclosure would be reasonably expected to cause it financial or economic harm under s. 17(1). The Report does not constitute a plan relating to the management of personnel or administration of the City under s. 17(1)(c). The City had failed to establish that disclosure would harm its negotiating position under s. 17(1)(f). The City must disclose the entire report.
An applicant asked the City for information related to a lease arrangement between the City and a company called Ecodrive. The City notified Ecodrive that it intended to release certain information requested by the applicant. Ecodrive sought to review that decision because it said disclosure would be harmful to its business interests. The adjudicator found the information at issue did not meet the business harms test because it related to a negotiated agreement between the parties and not supplied information as required by s. 21 of FIPPA.
A journalist requested correspondence between BCLC and a director of a gaming company, who was also a former Chair of the Board of Directors of BCLC. BCLC identified email correspondence between the CEO of BCLC, as he then was, and the director to be responsive to the request and decided to disclose the records to the journalist. BCLC provided notice of the request to the director. The director requested a review on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA and would harm the interests of one of his businesses under s. 21. Section 22 applies only to the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties. The journalist argues that s. 25 of FIPPA requires disclosure of the correspondence as being in the public interest. Section 25 does not apply to any of the information. Section 21 does not apply to any of the information. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to withhold the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties and disclose the remainder of the information.
The union representing the employees of Domcor requested a copy of the contract between the company and the health authority for the provision of security services. Domcor asked for a review of the decision of the health authority to disclose the contract to the union, on the basis that release would harm its business interests. The information was found to be the commercial and financial information of Domcor, but Domcor failed to demonstrate that it had supplied the information in confidence. The adjudicator ordered the health authority to disclose the contract.
Section 25 does not require the Ministry to disclose information in an outsource service contract in the public interest. Section 21(1) does not require the Ministry to refuse to disclose information as claimed by the third-party contractor. The Ministry is obliged to respond to the applicant on the applicability of all exceptions to disclosure, not just s. 21(1), since the third-party review requested by the contractor froze only the Ministry’s duty to respond to the access request for the information that was the subject of the third-party review.
The applicant sought access to Gaming Control Act reports from casino operators relating to suspected or actual criminal activity within casinos. The Ministry refused access to any information, citing ss. 15(1)(a) and (l) and s. 21 of FIPPA. The Ministry is not authorized by s. 15 or required by s. 21 to withhold access to the records, but is required under s. 22 to withhold some third-party personal information in them. The Ministry is required to sever that personal information and release the remainder of the records to the applicant within 60 days
Adjudicator's decision to deny public body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be held.
VCHA was not authorized by s. 17(1) or required by s. 21(1) to refuse to give access to the price schedule or the penalty provision in a contract for cleaning services in health care facilities. It is ordered to provide access to the entire contract, a presentation to its board of directors and its business case for the privatization of cleaning services.
The applicant sought records relating to development of a rapid transit line connecting Richmond, Vancouver International Airport and downtown Vancouver. Sections 12(1) and 22(1) require the Premier’s Office to refuse disclosure and ss. 14, 16(1) and 17(1)(e) authorize it to refuse disclosure
A corporation owned and controlled by the Province of British Columbia was a third party and not a public body under the Act. The applicant local government made an access request to the Ministry for a report prepared by business and financial consultants for that corporation, respecting its investment in a forest products company. The Ministry is not authorized to refuse access under s. 13(1) because information was not developed by or for a public body or minister, but the Ministry is required to refuse access under s. 21(1).
Section 21(1) does not require the Ministry to refuse access to rate information in three contracts for computer consulting services, proposals preceding the contracts or a score sheet comparing proposals. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to refuse to disclose some personal information in the proposals preceding the contracts.
The applicant sought records relating to a request for proposals to provide services to
the provincial government, including proposals submitted by other proponents and records
reflecting the government’s assessment of the proposals. Section 21(1) requires the Ministry to
refuse disclosure of information which could reasonably be expected to result in harm under
s. 21(1)(c).
The applicant, a journalist, asked UBC for access to records respecting on-campus
supply of goods or services by third-party businesses. UBC decided that ss. 14 and 17(1)
authorize, and that s. 21(1) requires, UBC to withhold a 1998 draft agreement with two banks.
No evidence was provided regarding s. 21(1), nor is there a basis on the face of the disputed
record, or otherwise, to conclude that s. 21(1) applies. Further, neither s. 14 nor s. 17(1)
authorizes UBC to refuse disclosure. Section 14 does apply, however, to notes made by UBC’s
in-house lawyer on two pages of the draft agreement
Applicant requested a copy of a 1997 exclusive sponsorship agreement between IDEA, a society the members of which are educational bodies, and Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. Capilano College initially denied access to most of the agreement under s. 17(1) and s. 21(1), but later disclosed further portions. Section 25 found not to require disclosure in the public interest. Remaining withheld portions of the agreement required to be disclosed because s. 17(1) and s. 21(1) requirements not met.
Applicant sought access to a copy of the contract(s) from BC Transit, Thompson-Nicola Regional District and Wells Grey Community Resources Society for provision of a transit program. Section 17(1) did not apply to information in the disputed records. Section 21(1) did not apply to the variable distance costs and monthly payment information but did apply to the fixed monthly costs and the variable hourly costs.
SFU authorized to deny access to most of two insurance policies issued to SFU by an insurer partly owned by SFU. Wording of most of the policies was proprietary to the insurer. Disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm SFU as contemplated by s. 17(1), through increased premiums for insurance. Disclosure also could reasonably be expected to harm significantly the insurer’s competitive position as contemplated by s. 21(1). Some information – such as premium amounts, policy periods and limits – could not be withheld under either section.
Applicant trade union sought access to contracts between public body and two health care service providers. Public body withheld global contract amounts, hourly rates and other breakdowns of global contract amounts. Disputed information had been negotiated and not “supplied” within the meaning of s. 21(1)(b). Public body not required to refuse access and also not required to withhold information where a previous contractor was no longer in business. Section 21(1) not available to protect new company that employs a principal and shareholder of previous contractor.
Applicant brewer sought 1994 through 1999 aggregate sales data for each of two competitor brewers. Those sales data were generated by the public body but are deemed by the Liquor Distribution Act to be information supplied in confidence by the third party brewers. Information is financial or commercial information of those third parties. Reasonable expectation of significant harm to competitive positions was shown; public body was required by s. 21(1)(c)(i) to refuse to disclose information under s. 21(1). Disclosure also could reasonably be expected to result in undue financial gain or loss, so public body also was required by s. 21(1)(c)(iii) to withhold the information. Information was not gathered for the purpose of collecting a tax, so public body not required to withhold on that basis.
The BC Liberal Caucus, Vancouver Television and The Leader newspaper made requests for records relating to an agreement between the Province and Delta Fraser Properties about Burns Bog. Ministries decided that information in the responsive records could be released without harming Delta Fraser’s interests under s. 21. Delta Fraser sought review. Ministries’ decision correct. Ministries to continue processing requests.
Applicant sought records relating to his family’s involvement with the Ministry and its predecessor agency. Applicant also sought Ministry records relating to complaints lodged by applicant about his daughter. Ministry disclosed some records (including applicant’s personal information) and withheld third party personal information. Ministry required under both CFCSA and Act to refuse to disclose information. Ministry entitled to consider relevant circumstance of hostile relations between applicant and daughter. Applicant’s assertion of need for information for legal proceedings insufficient to favour disclosure.
A third party requested a review of the public body’s decision to disclose records in response to an access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The third party asserted the public body must refuse to disclose information in the records under s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to any of the information in dispute and ordered the public body to disclose the requested records to the applicant.
An applicant requested records from the Northern Health Authority (Authority) containing information about COVID-19 outbreaks at work camps. In response, the Authority released some information but withheld other information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party), and 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to all the information in dispute under that section and that s. 13 applied to some of the information in dispute under that section. The adjudicator also found the Authority was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 21(1). However, the adjudicator found that none of the sections of FIPPA relied on by the Authority applied to the remaining information in dispute and ordered the Authority to release that information to the applicant.
An applicant requested, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), a copy of an agreement between the City of Vancouver (City) and the Vancouver Canadians baseball team for the use of Nat Bailey Stadium. The City disclosed the agreement in severed form, withholding some information under s. 21(1) of FIPPA (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator noted that the City had disclosed some of the withheld information in a public report in 2012 but, nevertheless, considered all of the information in dispute. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the withheld information and ordered the City to disclose it to the applicant.
An applicant requested 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 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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) for a copy of an emergency dispatch protocol. Priority Dispatch Corp., the third party which licences use of the protocol software to the PHSA, objected to the PHSA’s decision to disclose the records at issue, saying that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause it significant harm under s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the PHSA to disclose the information in dispute to the applicant.
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.
A journalist requested from the City of Vancouver (City), under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the bids for three requests for proposal (RFPs) for nearly 900 units of affordable housing. A third-party objected to the City’s decision about how it would sever the third party’s three bids. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the information in dispute and ordered the City to disclose it to the journalist.
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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to certain records. FHA disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information in them. The applicant requested a review of this decision. FHA also notified a third party that it planned to disclose some records (Audit Reports) to the applicant. The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision. The adjudicator determined that FHA was not required to refuse to disclose the Audit Reports under s. 21(1) of FIPPA, but that it was required to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
An applicant requested, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the contract between the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (BC Housing) and Ideaspace Consulting Inc. (Ideaspace). BC Housing decided to disclose the records but Ideaspace objected, saying s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) of FIPPA applied to the records. Ideaspace argued later that the records in dispute were not the requested contract. The adjudicator found that they were and that s. 21(1) did not apply to them. The adjudicator ordered BC Housing to disclose the records to the applicant.
The applicant requested all contracts and service awards between the City of Richmond (the City) and the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for 2020 and 2021. The City identified a single agreement that was responsive to the applicant’s request, but withheld it in its entirety under ss. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 17(1) (harm to public body’s financial or economic interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that neither section applied, and ordered the City to disclose the agreement to the applicant.
The applicant requested information from the City of Vancouver related to the rezoning of the property surrounding Crofton Manor, a senior’s care facility in the City. The City disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under s. 21 in part, and its decision under s. 22 in full, and ordered the City to disclose some information incorrectly withheld under s. 21 to the applicant.
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 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.
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.
A third-party requested a review of the public body’s decision regarding what information in their contract must not be disclosed under s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator expanded the scope of the inquiry to decide about all of the information the public body and the third party said must be withheld under s. 21(1), not just the severing in dispute between them. The adjudicator found that the public body was not required to refuse access to any part of the contract under s. 21(1) and ordered the public body to disclose it to the access applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to the asset purchase agreement (Agreement) by which FHA acquired the business assets of a third party. FHA decided it was required to disclose the Agreement, except for some information which FHA and the third party agreed should be withheld under s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision, arguing that the entire Agreement should be withheld under s. 21(1) (disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party). The adjudicator confirmed FHA’s decision that it is not required to refuse to disclose the disputed information under s. 21(1).
The applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) for access to records relating to a contract for parking management services between
Imperial Parking Canada Corporation (Impark) and the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). PHSA decided to disclose the records, except for some minimal information it decided it was required to withhold under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) and s. 21 (harm to third-party business interests). Impark requested a review of PHSA’s decision, arguing that more information should be withheld under s. 21. The adjudicator confirmed PHSA’s decision in part and concluded that it is required to refuse the applicant access to some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s. 21.
An applicant requested BC Pavilion Corporation provide access to its
stadium use agreement with the Canadian Soccer Association for the FIFA Women’s
World Cup Canada 2015. BC Pavilion Corporation refused to disclose parts of the record
under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator ordered BC Pavilion Corporation to disclose
the information to the applicant because s. 21(1) did not apply.
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 applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to the entire file regarding an investigation into a named individual’s care at a care centre prior to their death at a hospital. FHA decided it was required to disclose all of the responsive information, except for some information that it determined it was required to withhold under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The business entity responsible for the care centre requested a review of FHA’s decision, arguing that the information FHA decided to disclose should be withheld under s. 21 (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator confirmed FHA’s decision that it is not required to refuse to disclose the disputed information under s. 21.
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.
An applicant requested access to correspondence between a named employee of the City of Vancouver (City) and three other individuals. The City disclosed 31 pages of emails, withholding some information under ss. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the City to disclose this information. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered the City to disclose the information to which she found s. 22(1) does not apply. The applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) requires disclosure of the withheld information but the adjudicator found that it does not.
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.
Two applicants made requests to the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (BCHMC) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for the contract for the sale of the Little Mountain social housing site to Holborn Properties Limited. BCHMC disclosed the responsive records in severed form, withholding some of the information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered BCHMC to disclose the information in dispute to the applicants. One applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) required disclosure of the information in dispute. The adjudicator decided it was not necessary to consider s. 25(1)(b), in light of her decision under s. 21(1).
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 requested a specific contract between the Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) and a third party for the provision of laundry services. Interior Health responded by providing the contract with some information withheld under ss. 15(1)(l) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), 21(1) (disclosure harmful to third party business interests) and 22(1) (disclosure an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The applicant asked the OIPC to review Interior Health’s decision respecting s. 21(1). The adjudicator found that Interior Health was not required to withhold the information under s. 21(1).
An applicant requested access to records related to meetings between the Ministry of Health and representatives of pharmaceutical companies. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body or government) applied to some of the information. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to other information and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the applicant.
An applicant requested records related to a review by Deloitte LLP (Deloitte)
of the Ministry of Health’s (Ministry) data security and handling. The Ministry disclosed the responsive records, withholding some information under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry ultimately abandoned reliance on all exceptions but s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a property or system). Deloitte argued that ss. 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) applied to some information. The applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) applied to the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply but that s.15(1)(l) applied to some of the information. The adjudicator also found that s. 21(1) did not apply to some of the information and ordered the Ministry to disclose it. It was not necessary to consider s. 22(1).
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 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 invoices and payments to Ernst Young LLP (EY) for the empty home tax survey and report submitted to the City of Vancouver (City) on November 4, 2016. The City decided to disclose the only responsive record, an invoice. EY requested a review of this decision, arguing that s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) applied to information in the invoice. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision and ordered it to disclose the invoice in full to the applicant.
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.
An applicant requested development permit drawings for a proposed development in the Township of Langley (Langley). Langley denied access to the
drawings under ss. 17(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that neither exception applied and ordered Langley to disclose the drawings to the applicant.
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.
An applicant requested access to records about a meeting between the former Minister of Natural Gas Development and executives of a company proposing to build a liquefied natural gas processing and export facility. The Ministry disclosed records to the applicant, but withheld some information in them pursuant to exceptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator disagreed with the applicant’s claim that the Ministry was required to disclose the information under s. 25 (disclosure in public interest). The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body) and 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) applied to most of the information but s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) did not. The Ministry was ordered to give the applicant access to some of the information in dispute.
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 access to records about a contract with Stericycle for the disposal of biomedical waste. The Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) decided to disclose the responsive records, which were an information sheet about a contract between HealthPRO and Stericycle and an expired contract between Stericycle and the PHSA and other BC health authorities. HealthPRO and Stericycle objected to this decision, arguing that s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) applied to the two records. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the records and required the PHSA to disclose them to the applicant.
A journalist requested access to the contract between PavCo and TED
Conferences for the March 2014 Ted Conference. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to the withheld information and ordered PavCo to disclose it to the journalist.
An applicant requested access to vendors’ submissions in response to ICBC’s Request for Expressions of Interest #2011-006 (providing “bio hazardous vehicle cleaning” services) and any contracts with vendors for providing those services. ICBC decided to disclose BioSolutions Inc.’s Expression of Interest, withholding some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). ICBC also decided to disclose the resulting contract with BioSolutions. BioSolutions objected to the disclosure of both records. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) does not apply to the information which ICBC decided to disclose and ordered ICBC to disclose it to the applicant.
A journalist requested attachments to the contract between Plenary Justice Okanagan and the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services for the design, construction, financing and maintenance of the Okanagan Correctional Centre. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to the information in the attachments because it was not “supplied” but negotiated. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the attachments to the journalist.
A reporter requested access to “Project Work Defect” notices related to Translink’s Compass Card project in Metro Vancouver. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply to the information in the notices. The adjudicator also found that s. 21(1) did not apply to the notices and ordered TransLink to disclose them to the reporter.
The applicant requested access to information in a contract between the City of Grand Forks and Neptune Technology Group (Canada) Ltd. regarding a residential water metering system. The City refused to give the applicant access to the requested information on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm Neptune’s business interests under s. 21(1). The adjudicator found that s. 21 did not apply to the information in dispute and ordered the City to disclose it to the applicant.
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 BC Shorthand Reporters Association (“BCSRA”) requested access to the service agreement for court reporting services between ICBC and Premiere Verbatim Reporting (“PVR”). PVR objected to disclosure of pricing information in the agreement, on the grounds that disclosure could harm its business interests under s. 21(1). The adjudicator found that the pricing information was PVR’s financial information, but that it had not been “supplied” to ICBC for the purposes of s. 21(1)(b). It was therefore not necessary to consider whether the pricing information had been supplied “in confidence” under s. 21(1)(b), nor whether its disclosure could harm PVR’s business interests under s. 21(1)(c). The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose the pricing information to BCSRA.
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.
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.
An applicant requested a copy of a food services agreement between Compass and the Ministry. Compass objected, on the grounds that disclosure of the agreement could reasonably be expected to harm its business interest. The adjudicator found that the information in the agreement was commercial and financial information of or about Compass but that the information had not been “supplied” to the Ministry. The adjudicator also found that Compass had not shown that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm its business interests. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the entire agreement to the applicant.
An applicant requested a copy of the agreement between PavCo and the BC Lions for the use of BC Place Stadium. The BC Lions disagreed with PavCo’s decision that s. 21 of FIPPA (harm to third party business interests) did not apply to the record. The adjudicator concluded that s. 21(1) did not apply to the record as the BC Lions had not “supplied” the information in dispute within the meaning of s. 21(1)(b). The adjudicator ordered PavCo to disclose all of the Agreement to the applicant.
Compass Group requested a review of Vancouver Island Health Authority’s decision to disclose its contracts with VIHA to the applicant Hospital Employees’ Union. Compass argued disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm its business interests. The adjudicator determined that the information in the contract was not supplied in confidence within the meaning of s. 21(1)(b) of FIPPA, and VIHA was ordered to disclose the contracts.
The applicant requested information from the Ministry related to a Notice of Intent advising of the Province’s plan to directly award contracts for telecommunications and other services to TELUS. The Ministry notified TELUS of its intention to disclose all of the information to the applicant. TELUS requested a review of the Ministry’s decision on the grounds that disclosure would harm its interests under s. 21(1)(c). The adjudicator found only a small portion of the information was supplied in confidence under s. 21(1)(b), and that disclosure could not reasonably be expected to result in harm under s. 21(1)(c). The adjudicator ordered disclosure of all of the requested information.
FIPA requested records related to the Revenue Management Project. The Ministry withheld some information under ss. 15, 17 and 21. The Ministry was authorized to withhold some of the records under s. 15 because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the security of the Province’s computer system. The Ministry was not authorized to withhold the list of computer software and certain server information withheld under this section. The Ministry was also not authorized to withhold any records withheld under s. 17 because it had not demonstrated that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause financial or economic harm to the Province. With respect to s. 21 the information was found to be commercial information of HPAS, but HPAS failed to demonstrate that it had “supplied” the information in confidence. Moreover, the third part of the three-part test of s. 21(1) of FIPPA, relating to significant harm to business interests, was not met. The public body was ordered to disclose the records it withheld under s. 21.
The HEU requested access to documents related to quality assurance in the provision of dietary and housekeeping services between the public body and Compass Canada. Compass asked for a review of the public body’s decision to give access to the records. The information was found to be commercial and financial information of Compass, but Compass failed to demonstrate that it had supplied the information “in confidence”. Moreover, the third part of the three-part test of s. 21(1) of FIPPA, relating to significant harm to business interests, was not met. The public body was ordered to disclose the records.
The HEU requested access to contracts and documents related to the provision of dietary and housekeeping services between the public body and Compass Canada. Compass asked for a review of the public body?s decision to give access to portions of the contract relating to the financial amounts and the timelines of some of the terms of the contract. The information was found to be commercial and financial information of Compass, but the information in the contract was found to be negotiated and not supplied. Compass also failed to substantiate that disclosure would cause economic harm. The three-part test of s. 21(1) of FIPPA was not met. Public body ordered to disclose the remaining schedules of the contracts.
The HEU requested access to the original cleaning services contract between the public body and Compass Canada and a copy of the contract as it was subsequently amended. Compass asked for a review of the public body‘s decision to give access to portions of the contract relating to the financial amounts and the timelines of some of the terms of the contract. The information was found to be commercial and financial information of Compass, but the information in the contract was found to be negotiated and not supplied. Compass also failed to substantiate that disclosure would cause economic harm. The three-part test of s. 21(1) of FIPPA was not met. Public body ordered to disclose the rest of the contract.
The HEU requested access to the patient food services contract and the retail food services contract between the public body and Sodexo Canada. Sodexo asked for a review of the public body’s decision to give access to portions of the contract relating to quality standards and targets; fees for food services; goods and services covered by certain rates; capital repayments; and customer sales base information. The information was found to be commercial and financial information of Sodexo, but the information in the contract was found to be negotiated and not supplied. Sodexo also failed to substantiate that disclosure would cause economic harm. The three-part test of s. 21(1) of FIPPA was not met. Public body ordered to disclose the rest of the contract.
The HEU requested access to a contract and subsequent amendments for laundry and linen services between the public body and K-Bro Linens Systems. K-Bro asked for a review of the public body?s decision to give access to portions of the contract relating to service delivery options, performance management provisions, and base pricing. The information was found to be commercial and financial information of K-Bro, but the information in the contract was found to be negotiated and not supplied. K-Bro also failed to substantiate that disclosure would cause economic harm. The three-part test of s. 21(1) of FIPPA was not met. Public body ordered to disclose the rest of the contract.
The applicant requested information from the Ministry relating to information gathered from fish farms under its Fish Health Audit and Surveillance Program. The Ministry refused the request on the basis the fish farms supplied the information in confidence and disclosure could subject the fish farms to various harms if disclosed. Disclosure of the information is ordered. Fish carcasses turned over to the Ministry for testing did not constitute the supply of information. The fish farms did not supply other information explicitly or implicitly in confidence and in the event it did, the Ministry failed to prove that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause harm.
Third party contractor asked for a review of the public body’s decision that s. 21(1) did not require it to refuse to give access to part of the contractors winning proposal in an RFP competition for vending machine services. Section 21(1) requires the public body to withhold part, but not all, of the proposal.
The Applicant sought records relating to the third party’s business dealings with the Ministry, including contracts, research agreements and correspondence. The third party objected to their disclosure under s. 21 of FIPPA. The Ministry failed to prove that requested records were confidentially supplied or that their disclosure would harm the business interests of the third party.
An applicant requested plans from the City of Fernie submitted by a third party to obtain a permit to build a house. The third party argued that disclosing the plans would unreasonably invade his privacy and result in harm to his business interests. Those arguments were without merit and the City was required to disclose the plans. The information in the plans, consisting primarily of external drawings of the house, was for the most part already apparent by visual observation of the property.
Applicant requested access to the concession agreement for the Canada Line rapid transit project. Canada Line disclosed the concession agreement in severed form, withholding information under ss. 15, 16, 17 and 21. Canada Line and InTransit BC did not establish a reasonable expectation of harm flowing from disclosure. All withheld information is ordered disclosed.
The applicant requested records from a government program that nominates foreign workers for accelerated immigration. The Ministry disclosed the application forms, position descriptions, required qualifications and job offer letters but withheld some information in those records under s. 21 and s. 22. The test for s. 21 was not met. Some information must be withheld under s. 22 to prevent unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy. Some of the information was not “personal information” and must be disclosed.
Parents requested access to personal information about themselves and their minor child. School District disclosed most of the requested records, withholding some information under ss. 21 and 22. School District ordered to disclose a few phrases of personal information of one applicant as s. 22 does not apply to it. Section 21 is found not to apply to five pages of records and School District ordered to disclose portions from these pages which are the applicants’ personal information.
The third-party contractor requested a review of the public body’s decision that s. 21(1) did not require it to refuse to give access to price information in a contract between the public body and the contractor for services at a seniors home care facility. Section 21(1) does not apply to the contract price information.
The Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its destination casino project. The BC Lottery Corporation disclosed some records and withheld and severed others, mainly under ss. 14, 17(1) and 21(1). It also argued that records and information fell outside the scope of the request by virtue of their date or subject matter. Section 14 found to apply but not ss. 17(1) and 21(1). Other records and information found not to be within the scope of the request.
Applicant requested copy of cafeteria management contract between Kwantlen University College and a food services company. KUC disclosed most of contract, withholding payment and capital investment information under s. 21. Severed information does not meet the second and third parts of the s. 21 test and is ordered disclosed.
Applicant requested copy of insurance company’s response to his complaint. FICOM withheld it under s. 21. Section 21 does not require FICOM to withhold respons
Commission requested and accepted six proposals from a consulting company, which retained a named individual to deliver some or all of the contract services. Applicant requested access to records relating to the Commission’s direct or indirect retainer of the services of the named individual. Section 21(1) does not require the Commission to refuse to disclose time estimates, daily rate information and total fees and administrative expenses respecting the contract services, or standard contract terms and conditions
Applicant requested access to two reports of investigations into complaints the applicant made about her children’s teacher and about bullying of her children by other students. Section 22 requires the School District to refuse to disclose some, but not all, personal information in the reports. Section 21 is not applicable
Section 21(1) does not require the Ministry to refuse access to rate information in three contracts for computer consulting services, proposals preceding the contracts or a score sheet comparing proposals. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to refuse to disclose some personal information in the proposals preceding the contracts.
Parents requested access to two investigation reports regarding a third-party teacher. Teacher requested a review of the School District’s decision to disclose reports in severed form. School District found to have correctly decided to disclose severed reports.
The BCNU sought access to two contracts for nursing services at a correctional
centre. The Ministry withheld some contract price information under s. 17(1) and some under
s. 21(1). The third-party contractor argued that s. 21(1) applied to all of the disputed information.
The exceptions claimed do not authorize or require the Ministry to refuse to disclose the disputed
information. The Ministry has not established a reasonable expectation of harm in relation to
information withheld under s. 17(1). Information withheld under s. 21(1) falls under s. 21(1)(a)
and (c), but requirements of s. 21(1)(b) are not met
Applicant requested access to a copy of third-party records in the City’s possession that
set out the third party’s views on and experience with certain commercial activities. The records
qualify as third-party commercial information voluntarily supplied to the City in confidence and the
evidence establishes that similar information would no longer continue to be supplied to the City if the
records are released. The City is required to withhold the records under s. 21(1)
The applicant, a journalist, asked UBC for access to records respecting on-campus
supply of goods or services by third-party businesses. UBC decided that ss. 14 and 17(1)
authorize, and that s. 21(1) requires, UBC to withhold a 1998 draft agreement with two banks.
No evidence was provided regarding s. 21(1), nor is there a basis on the face of the disputed
record, or otherwise, to conclude that s. 21(1) applies. Further, neither s. 14 nor s. 17(1)
authorizes UBC to refuse disclosure. Section 14 does apply, however, to notes made by UBC’s
in-house lawyer on two pages of the draft agreement
The applicant, the president of an unsuccessful corporate bidder for a construction project, requested access to tender-related project records. BCHMC refused, under s. 21, to disclose a list of subcontractors submitted by a third-party bidder. No general rule can be laid down, on the evidence in this case certainly, about protection for tender-related information. On the evidence in this case, BCHMC is not required to refuse disclosure of the list.
Applicants requested access to two contracts for operation of commuter rail service, a services agreement and a crewing agreement. Translink decided it was not required to refuse access under s. 21(1) of the Act and CPR requested a review of that decision. Although confidentiality is present through the contracts’ terms, Translink is not required to refuse access as neither agreement contains information supplied to Translink. CPR also has not established that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm significantly its competitive position or interfere significantly with its negotiating position.
Applicant brewer sought 1994 through 1999 aggregate sales data for each of two competitor brewers. Those sales data were generated by the public body but are deemed by the Liquor Distribution Act to be information supplied in confidence by the third party brewers. Information is financial or commercial information of those third parties. Reasonable expectation of significant harm to competitive positions was shown; public body was required by s. 21(1)(c)(i) to refuse to disclose information under s. 21(1). Disclosure also could reasonably be expected to result in undue financial gain or loss, so public body also was required by s. 21(1)(c)(iii) to withhold the information. Information was not gathered for the purpose of collecting a tax, so public body not required to withhold on that basis.
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 records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about his interactions with outpatient services. The Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information from them under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires Island Health to refuse to disclose the information.
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.
An applicant requested that The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia (Association) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to certain records where he is mentioned or is otherwise identifiable. The Association withheld information in the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, the Association’s application of ss. 13 (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator also confirmed the association’s application of s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and found s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) did not apply to the remaining information. The adjudicator ordered the Association to disclose some information to the applicant.
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.
An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related
to an external investigation of the University’s treatment of the applicant. The University
disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator
determined that the University was authorized to withhold all the information withheld
under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some information withheld under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered the University to disclose that information.
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 records relating to conditional water licences from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). The Ministry provided the applicant with partial access to the responsive records but withheld some information in the records relying on several different exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined the Ministry properly applied s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) to withhold the information at issue. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized to withhold some, but not all, of the information at issue under ss. 15(1)(l) (security of a communications system) and 18(a) (harm to the conservation of heritage sites). The adjudicator also determined the Ministry was required to withhold most, but not all, of the information at issue under s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). Lastly, the adjudicator found that s. 3(5)(a) applies to some of the records at issue, thus they fall outside the scope of FIPPA.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
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.
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 applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) for records relating to herself and a particular College complaint investigation file. The College provided partial access, withholding information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14. The adjudicator also determined that the College is required or authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information that the College withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
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.
An applicant requested records about an investigation conducted by the Independent Investigations Office (IIO). The IIO refused to disclose some records under s. 3(3)(a) (court record) and some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(c) (harm to law enforcement), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found s. (3)(3)(a) did not apply to the records in dispute. The adjudicator confirmed the IIO’s decision regarding s. 14 and found that ss. 16(1)(b) and 22(1) applied to most, but not all, of the information withheld under those sections. However, the adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(c) did not apply to most of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(c). The IIO was required to respond to the applicant’s request for access to the records that the IIO withheld under s. 3(3)(a). The IIO was required to disclose the information that the IIO was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 15(1)(c), 16(1)(b) and 22(1).
The applicant requested all of the records relating to her treatment at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital. The Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 22(1)
(unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information in
dispute but ordered Interior Health to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
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.
A journalist requested records about the Site C construction review. The BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) withheld some information in the records under multiple exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Subsequently, BCUC also claimed that s. 61 of the Administrative Tribunals Act applies to the information in dispute and overrides FIPPA’s application. The adjudicator found s. 61(1)(c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act excludes the information in dispute from FIPPA’s application. For that reason, it was not necessary to decide if the FIPPA exceptions also applied.
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.
The applicant requested access to her own personal information from the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC) relating to a complaint that she had made against a member of the CPABC. The CPABC
disclosed some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 15 (harm to law enforcement) and
22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (FIPPA). The CPABC also withheld all of the information under s. 69 of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act (CPAA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(7) of
FIPPA overrides s. 69 of the CPAA. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(3), 13(1) and 15 of FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all
of the information. The adjudicator ordered the CPABC to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.
An applicant requested 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.
An applicant asked the Office of the Premier and the BC Public Service
Agency (public bodies) for records related to a leave of absence without pay taken by a former named employee. The public bodies withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The investigator found that s. 22(1) applied to all of the information in dispute and that the public bodies were required to withhold it.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to an agreement between the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) and two named individuals, along with other related documents. The Ministry withheld the entire agreement on the basis it was
protected by settlement privilege, but provided the applicant with partial access to other records by withholding information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the agreement on the basis of settlement privilege, but that it was required to withhold the agreement under s. 22(1). The adjudicator also found the Ministry was required to withhold most of the remaining information at issue under s. 22(1). The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
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 applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
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 applicant requested copies of records relating to a call to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) about him, including an audio recording of the call. The VPD disclosed records, including a transcript of the audio recording, but withheld some information under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that the VPD had correctly applied s. 22 and ordered it to withhold the information.
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. 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(1).
A journalist asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for records related to a news release on fraud cases that ICBC had investigated. ICBC disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). ICBC later argued that many of the records were court records and thus excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(a) (now s. 3(3)(a)). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information in dispute (drivers’ names and court and police file numbers) and ordered ICBC to refuse the journalist access to this information. The adjudicator also found that the issue of whether s. 3(1)(a) applies to some of the records was moot, as ICBC had already disclosed them in severed form.
The applicant 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 made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a cabinet briefing note and candidate profile and declaration for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive record, 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 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 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 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 requested information about short-term rental accommodation
and Airbnb in the City of Vancouver. The City refused access to the requested
information under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 19(1) (harm to individual safety), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to a small amount of the
information under ss. 15(1)(f), 19(1)(a) and 21(1). However, none of the exceptions applied to the rest of the disputed information and the City was ordered to disclose it to the applicant.
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 records showing the days worked and days absent for a particular employee of the Office of the Premier during two stipulated periods. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) refused to disclose information in the responsive records under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information at issue and ordered the Ministry to withhold the information.
An applicant requested from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) records containing their personal information. VicPD 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 VicPD had correctly applied the exceptions to disclosure and confirmed its decision to withhold the information at issue.
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.
The applicant requested the full names of the members of a community panel the City of Vancouver (City) convened to make a recommendation about a new
arterial road. The City decided to release all the names of the panelists, despite the objections of one panelist (the Panelist). The Panelist requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold their name. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires the City to withhold the Panelist’s name.
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, 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.
The public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file
under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to
public body’s financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply because the records had been in existence for 10 or more years, so s. 13(3) was engaged. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision, in part, to refuse access under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1) and ordered the public body to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 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 applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) file on its investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. The VPD disclosed some of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 15 (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to the information in dispute and ordered the VPD to refuse the applicant access to it. It was not necessary to consider s. 15.
An applicant requested access to all records about himself held by BC Transit. BC Transit withheld some information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). This order addresses BC Transit’s decision to withhold the name of one of its employees under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the name of the employee in the circumstances.
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.
The applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investigation that led to the well known 2012 Ministry employee firings. The Ministry provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This order considers ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 applied, and that s. 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that she found s. 22 did not apply to.
A journalist requested access to the emails of TransLink’s interim CEO for a specified five-day period in August 2015. TransLink disclosed most of the information, withholding small amounts of information, such as email addresses and a street address. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) did not apply to most of the information in dispute, as it was “contact information”, and ordered TransLink to disclose this information to the journalist. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to the interim CEO’s home telephone number and a small amount of information about a consultant’s employment history, and ordered TransLink to withhold this information.
An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal information. The public body refused access to information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that ss. 13,14 and 22 applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 17 did not. The adjudicator ordered the public body to disclose a small amount of information to the applicant.
The applicant requested access to the names and job titles of personnel involved with the Site C Clean Energy Project. The public body refused access to approximately 200 names on a list of individuals under ss. 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the public body was authorized to refuse access to all but four names under s. 19(1)(a) but not under s. 22 because s. 22(4)(e) applied. The public body was required to disclose the four names to the applicant.
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 access to correspondence between a named employee of the City of Vancouver (City) and three other individuals. The City disclosed 31 pages of emails, withholding some information under ss. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the City to disclose this information. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered the City to disclose the information to which she found s. 22(1) does not apply. The applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) requires disclosure of the withheld information but the adjudicator found that it does not.
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.
An applicant made seven requests to five public bodies for access to records relating to an identified mining project. The public bodies withheld information in the records under a number of exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the public bodies applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the public bodies were authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(1)(cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a system), 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party
personal privacy). However, the adjudicator found that some of the withheld information
did not fall within the claimed exceptions, and ordered the public bodies to disclose that information to the applicant.
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 requested copies of contracts between the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) and Sierra Group Inc. (Sierra). The Ministry decided to disclose the records to the applicant. Sierra disputed that decision and asserted that some information must be withheld under ss. 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that that ss. 21 and 22 did not apply to the information in dispute and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the applicant.
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 requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
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.
An applicant requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (College). The College withheld information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the College applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the College was required to withhold some information under ss. 13 and 14, but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13, 14 and 22 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(5) was not applicable since a third party did not confidentially supply any information about the applicant. However, the adjudicator ordered the College to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient explanation and evidence that the College exercised its discretion on proper grounds and considered all relevant factors.
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.
In Order F20-18, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency) to produce 20 pages of records to the OIPC so that she could make a decision respecting the public body’s application of s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) to those 20 pages.The public body complied, producing the records for the adjudicator’s review. The public body also reconsidered its application of s. 22 to 18 pages of the records and decided to disclose those pages to the applicant. The adjudicator confirmed that s. 22 did not require the public body to withhold those 18 pages and found that s. 22 applied to the information withheld under that section in the remaining two pages.
An applicant requested information related to a specific motor vehicle accident claim from ICBC. ICBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several exceptions to access in FIPPA. At inquiry, the adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision to apply these FIPPA exceptions to most of the information in dispute and ordered ICBC to disclose the rest to the applicant.
The applicant made a request to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to records relating to an investigation the FHA conducted under the Adult Guardianship Act. The FHA withheld the information in dispute under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the FHA was not authorized to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 14 and that the FHA was required to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 22.
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).
The applicants made a joint request for access to records relating to a complaint they made to the Law Society of British Columbia (Law Society) about a lawyer. The Law Society withheld the disputed information under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and s. 88(2) (privileged and confidential information) of the Legal Profession Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Law Society’s decision under s. 14 of FIPPA and s. 88(2) of the LPA regarding solicitor-client privilege and concluded that it was unnecessary to consider s. 22.
The applicant asked the BC Public Service Agency (PSA) for records related to a workplace investigation that occurred in the aftermath of the well-known Ministry of Health firings. The PSA withheld all the responsive records under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 13 (advice and recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to all but three of the records, two of which the PSA also withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the PSA to disclose the record not covered by s. 14 to the applicant. The adjudicator also ordered the PSA to produce the remaining two records to the commissioner under s. 44 and will remain seized of the matter until she makes a final decision respecting s. 22.
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.
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.
A professor made two requests for records related to an investigation and to certain communications about him. The University of Victoria gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University of Victoria’s decision to refuse the applicant access under ss. 14 and 22.
The applicant requested access to records related to the Water Management Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed some information to the applicant, but it withheld information relying on several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator also determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy), but ordered the Ministry to disclose the remaining information withheld under these sections to the applicant. Lastly, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because it provided no evidence that it had properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1).
The applicant requested documents from BC Hydro relating to contractors who bid for a construction project. BC Hydro withheld some information from two pages under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed BC Hydro’s decision.
An applicant requested access to records related to the Sunshine Coast Tourism Society’s application for the implementation of the municipal and regional district tax in two regional districts. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) withheld information in the records under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). For some of the records, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14 (solicitor client privilege), but ordered it to disclose the remaining information withheld under these sections to the applicant. The adjudicator also found the Ministry was not authorized or required to withhold information under ss. 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations) or 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy).
Two applicants requested access to records related to themselves and a particular property. The City withheld information in the records on the basis that s. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13(1) and 14 only applied to some of the withheld information and ordered the City to disclose the remainder to the applicants. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision to withhold information under s. 22(1).
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.
The City of White Rock refused access to records relating to its decision to censure one of its councillors on the basis of ss. 12(3)(b) (local body confidences), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 12(3)(b), 14 and 22(1) applied in part and ordered disclosure of the remaining 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.
A journalist requested access to records about the Site C project. BC Hydro disclosed some records but refused to disclose information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) and 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 17 applied to some of the information, but ss. 19(1)(a) and 22 did not apply to any information. It was not necessary to consider whether s. 14 applied. BC Hydro was ordered to give the applicant access to some of the information.
An applicant requested that the BC Emergency Health Services (EHS)
disclose records and audio recordings related to his calls to 911. EHS disclosed audio
recordings and an event chronology, but it withheld the names of its employees in the
event chronology under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA.
Disclosing the employee names in the event chronology would also identify the
employees in the audio recordings. The adjudicator found that identifying the EHS
employees in the audio recordings was an unreasonable invasion of their privacy;
therefore, EHS was required to withhold the employee names in the event chronology
under s. 22.
The applicant requested records of any daycare subsidy paid to his ex-spouse for their son. The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) refused access to the information on the basis that the applicant was not acting “for” or “on behalf of” his son and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the applicant’s ex-spouse’s personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting “for” or “on behalf of” his son and that MCFD was required to refuse access to some, but not all, of the information in dispute under s.22(1).
An applicant requested from ICBC access to a list of Robbins Parking employees, who were authorized under an information sharing agreement to access information about vehicle owners. ICBC provided the applicant with a letter from the parking company, but withheld employee names and a cell phone number under s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22 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.
An applicant requested a review of a decision made by the Town of Gibsons to refuse access to information in a record involving the Gibsons Public Market. The Town of Gibsons argued disclosure of the information would harm a third party?s 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 Town of Gibsons to disclose the withheld information to the applicant.
The applicant requested briefing notes for the attorney general on a specific topic. The Ministry refused to disclose the briefing notes in their entirety under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to all of the information in dispute except for third party correspondence attached to one briefing note. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 did not apply to the correspondence. The adjudicator required the public body to sever the correspondence under s. 4(2) and disclose it to the applicant.
A 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.
The applicant requested the names of all donors who donated over $3,000
to the University of Victoria between October 1, 2015 and September 15, 2016, along
with the amount they donated. The University provided some information to the
applicant, but withheld other information pursuant to ss. 17(1) (harm to financial
interests), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party), and s. 22 (unreasonable
invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the University was
authorized under s. 17 of FIPPA to withhold some of the information and required by
s. 22 to refuse to disclose other information. A small amount of information was ordered
to be disclosed to the applicant. Given the findings, it was not necessary to also consider
s. 21.
An applicant requested access to a settlement agreement involving
an individual, two real estate agents and other parties. The Real Estate Errors and
Omissions Insurance Corporation (REEOIC) provided the applicant with a copy of the
settlement agreement, but it withheld information under settlement privilege, s. 17 (harm
to financial or economic interests of a public body), s. 21 (harm to business interests of a
third party) and s. 22 (harm to third party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator
found REEOIC was authorized under common law settlement privilege to withhold the
information. Given this finding, the adjudicator did not consider whether ss. 17, 21 or 22
also applied to the withheld information.
The applicant requested copies of all discharge summaries relating to her deceased husband. The Hospital withheld the records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to act on behalf of the deceased and because it considered disclosure to be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The Adjudicator found that the applicant’s request was not made on behalf of the deceased individual and that disclosure of the records would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA.
A journalist requested a copy of a cheque as proof that certain funds had been repaid by a former BC Lottery Corporation executive. He also requested copies of related correspondence including the agreement between the parties regarding the repayment. BCLC withheld information and records under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA and common law settlement privilege. Except for the cheque number and the memo line, the adjudicator determined BCLC was required to withhold information under s. 22 and it was authorized to withhold information under s. 14 of FIPPA and settlement privilege.
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.
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 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.
Applicants requested information about a settlement agreement between the
City of Vancouver and an individual who had been wrongfully incarcerated. The City provided the responsive records but withheld most of the information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), s. 21 (harm to business interests of a third party), s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and under common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized under s. 14 of FIPPA and under common law settlement privilege to withhold the information. Given these findings, the adjudicator did not have to consider whether ss. 17, 21 or 22 applied to the records.
An applicant requested information about Immediate Roadside Prohibitions that the Tofino RCMP issued during a particular period of time. The Ministry provided the responsive records and withheld some information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence from a federal government agency) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized under s. 14 and required under s. 22 to withhold the information. The adjudicator, therefore, did not have to consider whether s. 16(1)(b) applied to the records.
The applicant requested records about a proposed Ministry policy regarding damage to the reputation of employees during legal proceedings. The Ministry disclosed some information, but it withheld other information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under s. 12 (cabinet confidences), s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information from the records under ss. 13 and 14. Given that finding, there was no need to also consider ss. 12 and 22.
An applicant requested access to records about the preparation of affidavits for a court action. The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA, to either confirm or deny the existence of the records on the grounds that disclosure of their existence would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed that the LSBC was authorized to rely on s. 8(2)(b).
The applicant requested copies of a survey conducted by a co-worker and any related records. The public body located a survey cover letter, survey questions, the survey responses, and the names of the individuals who completed the survey. The public body disclosed some of the survey questions and responses to the applicant and withheld the rest under s. 22 of FIPPA (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The public body also located a related workplace investigation report and withheld it in its entirety under ss. 22 and 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s ss. 14 and 22 decisions regarding some of the information. However, the adjudicator found that the public body was not required to refuse to disclose some information under s. 22 and ordered the public body to disclose that information to the applicant.
A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance he received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The adjudicator held that the information came within s. 22(4)(e), and therefore could not be withheld under s. 22.
A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance she received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The adjudicator held that the information came within s. 22(4)(e), and therefore could not be withheld under s. 22.
A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance he received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The third party argued that the payment was not “remuneration” within the meaning of s. 22(4)(e) because it was not severance pay. The adjudicator held that the payment was a form of remuneration, and, because it came within the scope of s. 22(4)(e), it could not be withheld under s. 22.
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.
The Independent Contractors and Business Association requested access to information that 16 union-sponsored pension plans filed with the Office of the Superintendent of Pensions. The Superintendent withheld some of the requested information under s. 21 (harm to third party business interests) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that neither s. 21 nor s. 22 applied and ordered the Superintendent to disclose the information to the applicant.
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 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.
ICBC disclosed to an applicant a copy of a transcript of an interview with another individual, withholding most of the information under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that the fact that the applicant already knows almost all of the withheld information outweighs any presumed invasion of the other individual’s personal privacy. The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose the transcript to the applicant.
A third party objected to BCSC’s decision to disclose records related to a complaint he made to BCSC. The third party argued that disclosure of any of the records would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found BCSC was required to withhold some third party personal information, but the remaining information was to be disclosed to the applicant.
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
An employee of the Regional District of Nanaimo requested access to any records containing his name. The Regional District provided records but it refused to disclose some information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 17 (harm to the financial or economic interests of a public body), 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Regional District’s decision regarding s. 13 but found that it was not authorized or required to refuse access to information under ss. 12(1), 17 or 21. The adjudicator also found that the Regional District is only required to refuse to give the applicant access to a portion of the information being withheld under s. 22.
A journalist requested a specific contract between TransLink and Burrard Communications, in addition to any reports from Burrard about its activities under the contract. TransLink disclosed the records in severed form, withholding some information under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to some of the information. However, the adjudicator found that s. 22(1) does not apply to some information about Burrard’s principal, as the journalist already knows this information, and ordered TransLink to disclose this information to the journalist.
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.
The applicant requested that the Vancouver Board of Education provide all records containing information pertaining to the applicant. The Board disclosed some records while withholding others under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (legal advice) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the Board is authorized to refuse to disclose information under s.13 and is required to refuse to disclose the majority of information under s. 22.
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 information about active grievances filed by employees of the Ministry of Health under the collective agreement governing their workplace. The Public Service Agency, which is part of the Ministry of Finance, responded to his request. The Ministry disclosed the number of active grievances for the requested period, but it refused to disclose any other information on the basis that to do so would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The information in dispute was contained in a table. The adjudicator determined that the majority of the information in the table would identify the grievors, so it was their personal information and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of their personal privacy under s. 22. However, severing under s. 4(2) was possible, and the Ministry was ordered to disclose specific information that would not permit identification of the grievors.
The applicant 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 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 applicants requested that the Delta Police Department (DPD) provide any records about themselves. DPD gave the applicants access to the responsive records but refused to disclose some information in them under s. 68.1(9) of the Police Act and ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(e) (reveal criminal intelligence), 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed DPD’s decision to withhold information under s. 68.1(9) of the Police Act, and under ss. 14, 15 and 22. The adjudicator found that DPD properly withheld information pursuant to s. 16(1)(b), with the exception of one small excerpt. The adjudicator also ordered DPD to reconsider its exercise of discretion respecting a second small excerpt withheld under s. 16(1)(b). In addition, during the inquiry, the applicants asserted that s. 25 (disclosure of the information is in the public interest) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply.
The applicant requested records relating to his employment with the IIO. The IIO withheld records and information under s. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of Act), s. 13 (policy advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (harm to law enforcement), s. 16(1)(b) (harm to intergovernmental relations), and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the IIO’s decision regarding ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 16(1)(b) and 22. The adjudicator determined that the IIO was not authorized to refuse the applicant access to information under s. 15 and required it give the applicant access to that information (subject only to information that it was authorized to refuse to disclose under the other exceptions).
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.
The applicant, a health care practitioner whose billings were audited by the Ministry of Health, requested records relating to a hearing that he had. The Ministry withheld the records on the basis that they were privileged under s. 14 of FIPPA. With one exception, the adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse access to the information.
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.
A former Independent Investigations Office employee requested a report that a labour relations consultant prepared for the Deputy Attorney General in relation to a complaint the applicant made against his former employer. The Ministry of Justice withheld the report under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 of FIPPA applies to the report, so the Ministry is required to refuse to disclose it to the applicant.
An applicant requested records related to a District of Oak Bay development variance permit he was granted in 2009 regarding his residence, as well as records related to bylaw enforcement matters involving him. Oak Bay disclosed nearly all of the information in the responsive records, but it withheld the identities of neighbours who opposed the applicant’s development variance application. The adjudicator determined that Oak Bay is required to refuse to disclose this information because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA.
An applicant requested a 2009 Capital Regional District staff report recommending that Stantec Consulting Ltd. be approved as the program management consultant regarding the development of a wastewater treatment plant in Greater
Victoria. The CRD disclosed most of the report, but it withheld a small amount of
information under s. 17 (disclosure harmful to the financial or economic interests of a
public body) and s. 21 (disclosure harmful to the business interests of a third party) of
FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 17 and 21 do not apply to this information, and ordered the CRD to disclose it to the applicant.
The applicant asked Langara College for grades assigned to him by classmates in a business course, as well as those that his classmates assigned to each other. The College refused access on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the applicant’s classmates under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The Adjudicator agreed, but found that the College was required to give the applicant a summary of his grades in a manner that would not identify his classmates.
Dynasty Plus Ltd. requested a third party review of the Ministry of International Trade and Ministry Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism’s decision to disclose a contract and its amendments between the Government of British Columbia and Dynasty. Dynasty argued disclosure of the contract and its 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) nor could disclosure of the records reasonably be expected to result in one of the harms set out in s. 21(1)(c) of FIPPA.
The applicant requested a record of email activity sent to and from Ministry
and other public bodies’ email addresses contained in logs residing on BC Government servers. The Ministry refused to disclose the record on the basis that disclosing it would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22. The Ministry
also said that it was unreasonable, for the purpose of s. 4(2) of FIPPA to sever
information to which s. 22 applies and release the remaining information. The adjudicator found that s. 22 applies to the record in issue. Further, it is unreasonable under s. 4(2) for the Ministry to sever personal information to which s. 22 applies and disclose the remaining information.
The applicant requested records about an individual who died in 1989. The VPD withheld all of the requested information from responsive records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy (s. 22). Specifically, the VPD cited the presumption against disclosing personal information if the information was compiled and is identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to prosecute the violation or to continue the investigation (s. 22(3)(b)). The adjudicator determined that the VPD must refuse to disclose all of the requested information from the responsive records, except for the names and titles of employees who worked on the disputed records, because disclosing this information would not be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22(4)(e) of FIPPA.
A journalist requested records related to the BC Association of Chiefs of
Police and the BC Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police. The Victoria Police
Department disclosed some records but refused to disclose other records and
information under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 15, 16 and 22 of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”) and s. 182 of the Police Act. The adjudicator found
that some records could be withheld because they are outside the scope of FIPPA due
to s. 3(1)(c) of FIPPA and others because s. 182 of the Police Act applied.
The adjudicator also found that some information could be withheld under s. 13 (advice
or recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege), s. 15 (1)(c) and (l) (harm to law
enforcement) and s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). However, VicPD was not authorized
to refuse to disclose any of the information it withheld under s. 16 (harm to
intergovernmental relations or negotiations).
The applicant 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.
The applicant requested records used to develop communications material to support the economic impacts of the Times of India Film Awards. The Ministry withheld some of the requested information from responsive emails on the basis that several exceptions to disclosure under FIPPA applied: Cabinet confidences (s. 12), advice and recommendations (s. 13), harm to the business interests of a third party (s. 21), and unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy (s. 22). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold some information under ss. 12 and 22, and authorized to withhold other information under s. 13. The Ministry is not required to withhold information under s. 21.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A former City of Vancouver employee requested all correspondence containing his name that was authored in certain time periods by any of eleven City employees. The City disclosed most of the correspondence but withheld some responsive information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator authorized the City to withhold some information under s. 13 while finding that other information must be disclosed. The adjudicator also determined that the City was required to refuse most of the information withheld under s. 22, but that some of the information was contact information so must be disclosed.
A former employee requested that the City of Richmond disclose the total amount paid to settle disputes with two former employees, as well as the total legal fees incurred for those matters. The City withheld the total amount paid to settle disputes under ss. 14 and 17 of FIPPA, and the legal fee information under ss.14, 17 and 22. The adjudicator determined that none of the exceptions applied and ordered the information disclosed.
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.
An applicant requested records from Langara College relating to complaints made against him as well as complaints he had made. The College disclosed most of the information but withheld some identifying information of complainants and witnesses and some other personal information as relating to law enforcement investigations under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 of FIPPA applied to some of the withheld information in dispute. However, the adjudicator found that it was not unreasonable to disclose information that the applicant already knew.
In Order F14-27 it was held that VIHA could not sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that those portions were ‘outside the scope’ of the applicant’s request. A reconsideration was sought and this order decides that issue. FIPPA does not authorize a public body to sever and withhold portions of responsive records on the basis that they are outside the scope of an applicant’s request. VIHA is ordered to consider the applicant’s request as it relates to those portions and disclose them with the exception of any information to which exceptions to disclosure set out in Division 2 of Part 2 of FIPPA apply.
The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association requested that ICBC provide records related to the data sharing and privacy aspects of combining the BC driver’s licence with the BC Services Card. ICBC refused to disclose some of the information in the responsive records under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), s. 14 (legal advice) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that, with a few exceptions, most of information was properly withheld under ss. 13 and 14. The adjudicator determined that disclosure of the withheld personal information would not be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, so ICBC was not authorized to withhold it under s. 22. ICBC also refused to disclose parts of the records on the basis that they were “not responsive” or outside the scope of the applicant’s request. The adjudicator held that ICBC is not authorized to refuse to disclose the information on that basis, and the only part of a responsive record that may be withheld is that which is covered by an exception under Part 2 of FIPPA.
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.
An applicant requested the Corporation of the District of Oak Bay (“Oak Bay”) provide him with records related to a permit to renovate his home. Oak Bay provided the applicant with records responsive to his request, but withheld names, house numbers and signatures from a petition because it believed disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy (s. 22 of FIPPA). The applicant was not satisfied with Oak Bay’s response and asked the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. Oak Bay 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 petitioners’ personal information would be an invasion of their personal privacy under s. 22; therefore, Oak Bay’s request that an inquiry not be held was denied.
An applicant requested the City of Kelowna (the “City”) provide information related to a bylaw complaint. The applicant was not satisfied with the City’s response and asked the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. The City requested the Commissioner exercise her discretion under s. 56 of FIPPA to not hold an inquiry. The adjudicator granted the City’s request because it was plain and obvious that disclosure of the requested information would reveal the identity of a confidential source of law enforcement information so s. 15(1)(d) of FIPPA applied.
The applicant requested year-end pay statements of a former and current CAO of the City of Rossland. The City withheld the pay statements on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information in the pay statements because it was not an unreasonable invasion of privacy, including information about remuneration under s. 22(4)(e) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City must continue to withhold some information that under s. 22(3) is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy if disclosed.
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Justice relating to a workplace investigation involving him that resulted in his employment being terminated. The Ministry disclosed some records and withheld others, citing ss. 13, 14, 15, and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information withheld under ss. 14 and 22, and all of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(c). The remaining information was required to be withheld under s. 22 or authorized to be withheld under ss. 13 or 15(1)(l).The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Justice relating to a workplace investigation involving him that resulted in his employment being terminated. The Ministry disclosed some records and withheld others, citing ss. 13, 14, 15, and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information withheld under ss. 14 and 22, and all of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(c). The remaining information was required to be withheld under s. 22 or authorized to be withheld under ss. 13 or 15(1)(l).
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Health relating to the regulation of raw milk in BC. The Ministry disclosed some records to the applicant. The Ministry withheld some records under ss.13 (policy advice), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22 (third party personal information) of FIPPA and some others on the basis that they are outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(j). The adjudicator ordered disclosure of the information withheld under s. 3(1)(j) and some of the information withheld under ss. 13, 14 and 22. The remaining information was required to be withheld under s. 22 or authorized to be withheld under ss. 13 or 14.
An applicant requested a Fraser Health Authority (“FHA”) investigation file about a workplace complaint she made to FHA. FHA disclosed nearly all of the records, but withheld part of one page of notes on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties (s. 22 of FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that FHA was required to refuse to disclose the withheld information under s. 22 of FIPPA.
A journalist requested records relating to tolling operations services for the Port Mann Bridge. Transportation Investment Corporation released most of the responsive information, but withheld portions of one contract on the basis that disclosure would harm the security of TI Corp’s computer network and firewall (s. 15(1)(l)), harm the business interests of a third party (s. 21), or be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties (s. 22). The adjudicator determined that TI Corp was authorized to withhold all of the information withheld under s. 15(1)(l). It was also required to withhold some of the information withheld under s. 21 and all of the information withheld under s. 22.
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Community Sport and Cultural Development related to the government’s decision to contribute funding towards a National Soccer Development Centre at UBC. The Ministry withheld some information in responsive records stating that it is required to refuse to disclose the information, citing Cabinet confidences under s. 12 of FIPPA and harm to third party business interests under s. 21 of FIPPA. The Ministry also withheld a small amount of other information, stating that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to refuse to disclose some information under s. 12 because it would reveal the substance of Treasury Board deliberations, either directly or by inference. Section 12 does not require the Ministry to refuse to disclose subject headings. Section 21 does not require the Ministry to refuse to disclose parts of a business case report. Further, s. 22 does not require the Ministry to refuse to disclose employment history information about a Ministry employee.
The respondent asked the British Columbia Lottery Corporation for copies of BCLC staff invoices and receipts for client promotions and hospitality. BCLC refused to disclose players’ names and ID numbers under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The respondent was not satisfied with this response and asked that this matter proceed to inquiry. BCLC requested the Commissioner exercise her discretion under s. 56 to not hold an inquiry. The adjudicator found that it was not plain and obvious that disclosure of the players’ personal information would be an invasion of their personal privacy under s. 22; therefore, BCLC’s request that an inquiry not be held is denied.
The applicant requested records relating to a Delta Police Department investigation of a motor vehicle collision she was involved in. The DPD released some information to the applicant, but withheld some on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA. After considering all the relevant factors the adjudicator ordered the DPD to disclose the applicant’s personal information in the records because disclosing it would not be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested access to records related to data sharing and research agreements between the Ministry of Health and four individuals, including information about delays or impediments to accessing data for research purposes. The Ministry refused to disclose some information in the responsive records under ss. 13, 15(1)(a), 15(1)(l) and 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”). The Ministry established that disclosure of some of the information at issue could reasonably be expected to harm a computer system, so could be withheld under s. 15(1)(l). However, the Ministry did not prove that disclosure would be harmful to law enforcement, so it was not authorized to refuse to disclose information under s. 15(1)(a). Nor did the Ministry establish that it was authorized under s. 13 to withhold policy advice or recommendations because that information had already been disclosed elsewhere in the records. Finally, the adjudicator ordered disclosure of most of the information that was withheld under s. 22(1) because disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy.
The applicant, on behalf of his adult daughter, requested access to records related to the daughter’s claims and appeals before WCAT. WCAT refused to disclose some of the requested information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that some of the records were outside the scope of FIPPA because they were communications and draft decisions of individuals acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, so s. 3(1)(b) applied. Further, WCAT was authorized under s. 13(1) to refuse disclosure of some of the information contained in the records because it was advice or recommendations developed by or for WCAT. The adjudicator also found that WCAT was required to continue to refuse to disclose all of the personal information withheld under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested access to his deceased father’s health records from Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. VCHA withheld the responsive records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that VCHA was required to withhold all of the responsive records, except one, under s. 22 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested records about a named employee of the BC public service. The request was responded to by the BC Public Service Agency, part of the Ministry of Finance, which withheld the responsive records from the employee’s personnel file on the basis disclosure was an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of the information about the named employee’s position, functions and remuneration because it would not be an unreasonable invasion of the employee’s privacy under s. 22(4)(e) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry must continue to withhold the remaining information because there is a presumption that disclosure of the information would be an unreasonable invasion of the named employee’s privacy under s. 22(3) and the presumption was not rebutted by any factors, including those in s. 22(2) of FIPPA.
The applicant requested records relating to the water flow of a creek and tributaries for the period from 1965 to 1996. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations released most of the responsive records, but withheld information that would identify individuals in relation to water use and water use complaints. The information was withheld on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 does not apply to most of the withheld information given the context and content of the information, and ordered the Ministry to disclose it. However, the adjudicator determined that s. 22 applies to a small amount of information, and ordered the Ministry to withhold it under s. 22
An applicant requested records from the City of Coquitlam regarding bylaw infraction complaints about a property occupied by the applicant. The City disclosed most of the information but withheld complainant identity information and some other information under ss. 12(3)(a), 13, 14, 15(1)(d) and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that ss. 14 or 22 of FIPPA applied to nearly all of the withheld information in dispute. While s. 22 did not apply to a small amount of information withheld under s. 22, it was not necessary to consider the application of ss. 12, 13 or 15 to the records because all of the information withheld under those sections falls under ss. 14 or 22.
The applicant requested information from ICBC relating to a claim she made concerning a motor vehicle accident. ICBC released some information but withheld other information under ss. 3(1)(c), 13, 14, 17 and 22 of FIPPA. ICBC is authorized to withhold most of the information it withheld under s. 14 of FIPPA because it is subject to solicitor-client privilege. ICBC is required to withhold some information it withheld under s. 22 of FIPPA because releasing the information would be an unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy. Some information does not need to be disclosed because it is outside of the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c) of the Act. The remaining information must be disclosed.
The applicant requested information and details regarding the care and cause of death of her daughter, who passed away while in foster care 34 years ago. The Ministry of Children and Family Development withheld information on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 did not apply in the circumstances, so the Ministry was required to disclose the responsive records. The adjudicator also ordered the Ministry to process the applicant’s request for the information in responsive records that the Ministry had marked out of scope.
The applicant requested information from the Vancouver Island Health Authority relating to VIHA’s decision-making process concerning fixed site needle exchange services in Greater Victoria. VIHA withheld information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13, 14 and 22 of FIPPA. It also withheld other information on the basis that the information was outside of the scope of the applicant’s request. The adjudicator was not satisfied that s. 12(3)(b) applies. However, he determined that ss. 14 and 22 apply to all of the information withheld under those sections and that s. 13 applies to most of the information withheld under that section. The adjudicator also ordered VIHA to process the applicant’s request for the information it had marked out of scope.
An applicant requested records about himself and the British Columbia Onsite Sewage Association from the Ministry of Health. The Ministry withheld responsive records on the basis that: disclosure would reveal policy advice or recommendations (s. 13), solicitor-client privilege applies (s. 14), and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties (s. 22). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold most of the records under these sections, but it was ordered to disclose some records. The adjudicator also determined the Ministry failed to exercise its discretion for the records withheld under s. 13 and ordered it to do so.
A former University of Northern British Columbia (“UNBC”) student requested investigation materials in relation to complaints he made about a UNBC faculty member. UNBC withheld most of the responsive records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of third parties (s. 22). The adjudicator required UNBC to withhold some information in the records. However, there was other information UNBC was required to disclose.
The applicant requested information relating to paternity testing conducted at Vancouver General Hospital. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority withheld some records under s. 3(1)(c), s. 14, s. 15(1)(l) and s. 22 of FIPPA. The Adjudicator found that VCHA was authorized to withhold the records withheld under ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 and was required to withhold some records under s. 22 FIPPA. The remaining records must be disclosed.
In responding to a request for access to an Agreement between it and the third party, the public body withheld information under both s. 17 and s. 21. Before the inquiry began, the public body took the position that s. 21 did not require it to withhold information. The inquiry proceeded without the third party’s participation. Order F14-05 held that s. 17 did not authorize the public body to withhold information. The third party learned of the order and applied for it to be re-opened, on the basis that the Office is not functus officio and that it should have been given notice under s. 54(b) of the inquiry. The inquiry is re-opened, notice will be given under s. 54(b) and the applicability of s. 21 to information in the record will be considered.
The applicant requested a copy of all medical information and family history about her grandfather’s first cousin, who has been deceased for 42 years. The Ministry of Children and Family Development withheld the responsive records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was not required to withhold most of the responsive records.
A student requested an investigation report by the University of British Columbia relating to a sexual assault and harassment complaint that the student made against a faculty member. UBC disclosed portions of the report, but withheld other portions on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of third parties under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that UBC was required to refuse to disclose most of the withheld information.
A resident at a VCHA supportive housing facility requested all information relating to him from VCHA. VCHA disclosed some information but withheld parts of two Occupational Safety and Health reports on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of a third party caregiver. The adjudicator required VCHA to continue to withhold the information in the reports.
The applicant requested copies of complaints sent to the City of Rossland’s external auditor about concerns with City financial matters and related correspondence. The City disclosed most of the responsive records, but withheld an excerpt of a complaint from a City councillor to the auditor on the basis that disclosure would reveal the substance of in camera council meeting deliberations (s. 12(3)(b)) and would also be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy (s. 22). The City also withheld the name of the person at the auditor’s office to whom the complaint letter was addressed on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the individual’s personal privacy (s. 22). The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to withhold the excerpt of the complaint because it would reveal the substance of deliberations of the in camera council meetings, but ordered the City to disclose the name of the person in the auditor’s office.
The applicants requested records relating to an investigation into their complaint that City officials improperly entered duplex units owned by the applicants. The City disclosed some records, but withheld portions of a memo on the basis that the withheld information was policy advice or recommendations, legal advice, and information that would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy if disclosed. The adjudicator determined that these sections applied to most of the withheld information, but ordered that some information be released.
The applicant requested information compiled by a Labour Relations Board (“Board”) Industrial Relations Officer relating to a union’s application for certification. The Board withheld most of the information, asserting that FIPPA did not apply because s. 61(2)(b) of the ATA applied. The Board also argued that if FIPPA did apply, the information must be withheld either under s. 21 of FIPPA, because disclosure would reveal labour relations information supplied in confidence to a person appointed to inquire into a labour relations dispute; or under s. 22 of FIPPA because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s privacy. The Adjudicator found that the ATA does not apply to the information, so FIPPA does apply and most of the information must be withheld under s. 21 of FIPPA. A small amount of information in a memo was not “supplied” under s. 21, does not contain personal information for the purpose of s. 22, and therefore cannot be withheld.
PCTIA identified a series of reports as responsive to an applicant’s request for information about three private colleges. PCTIA provided notice to the owner of the colleges, Eminata Group, that it planned to disclose the reports to the applicant. Eminata requested a review of PCTIA’s decision because it believed disclosure would harm its interests under s. 21 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found s. 21 applied to some of Eminata’s enrolment information in the reports. The adjudicator also ordered PCTIA to withhold some information because it would unreasonably invade third parties’ personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA if released. The rest of the information in the reports was ordered disclosed.
The City of Abbotsford identified email correspondence between it and Jack’s Towing as being responsive to an applicant’s request for information. The City notified Jack’s of its intention to disclose the emails to the applicant. Jack’s requested a review of the City’s decision on the grounds that disclosure would harm its interests under s. 21 and would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found s. 21 did not apply to any of the records, but ordered the City to withhold a small amount of third-party personal information that if released would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA.
The British Columbia Safety Authority withheld a bridge inspection report from a journalist on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to a railway company’s business interests. The adjudicator was not satisfied that disclosure of the report would be harmful and found that s. 21 of FIPPA did not apply.
The applicant requested the cellphone bills belonging to the Mayor of the City of Quesnel for a three year period. The City withheld the information in the “Number called” and the “To” and “From” columns of the bill on the grounds that disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that this was personal information, and that the City was obligated to refuse to disclose it pursuant to s. 22(1).
The applicant requested an audio recording of a 911 call made by a third party to the VPD. While the call contains some personal information of the applicant, the Adjudicator required the VPD to withhold the record because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA.
A City of Vancouver employee was suspended from work on two occasions. He requested all records regarding his suspensions. The City withheld records under ss. 13, 19(1)(a), and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator authorized the City to withhold certain records under s. 13, and required the City to withhold other records under s. 22. Sections 13 or 22 applied to all records. The adjudicator did not order disclosure of any records.
A surgeon, who previously exercised hospital privileges with VIHA, requested a copy of a letter of complaint that a general practitioner had written about him to the chief of surgery. This letter initiated a review of some of the applicant’s cases that led ultimately in the ending of his hospital privileges. VIHA withheld portions of the letter under s. 22(1) of FIPPA on the grounds that disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy of third parties. This information included details about the diagnosis and treatment of the applicant’s patients. VIHA also claimed that s. 51 of the Evidence Act applied to a passage relating to information that was disclosed to a Medical Advisory Committee. Section 51 of the Evidence Act applies to the passage in question. Section 22 of FIPPA applies to some, but not all, of the information withheld. VIHA ordered to disclose information about the applicant’s treatment and diagnosis of unnamed but potentially identifiable patients.
Adjudicator's decision to deny public body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be held.
The applicant requested personal information from two ICBC claims files. ICBC disclosed many records but withheld some in whole or part. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s application of legal advice privilege and, as lawsuits were ongoing, litigation privilege (s. 14). ICBC’s application of s. 22 (personal information of third parties) was confirmed for some but not all information and some information is ordered disclosed. ICBC showed reasonable expectation of financial harm for reserve information but not other information related to its defence in the lawsuits (s. 17) and this other information is ordered disclosed. ICBC properly withheld some information that was advice and recommendations it received from its claims examiner and a physician (s. 13). ICBC is ordered to reconsider its decision to refuse access to CPIC information under s. 16(1)(b)
The third-party casino operators requested further consideration of one aspect of the s. 22 guidelines contained in Order F08-03. Further submissions are permitted on that issue. In the meantime, the Ministry must disclose the s. 86 reports, as ordered in Order F08-03, with the exception of the information required to be withheld according to the guidelines in Order F08-03 and the names of casino employees acting in a professional or employment capacity, the disclosure of which remains unresolved pending further consideration of s. 22 arising from Order F08-03.
The applicant sought access to Gaming Control Act reports from casino operators relating to suspected or actual criminal activity within casinos. The Ministry refused access to any information, citing ss. 15(1)(a) and (l) and s. 21 of FIPPA. The Ministry is not authorized by s. 15 or required by s. 21 to withhold access to the records, but is required under s. 22 to withhold some third-party personal information in them. The Ministry is required to sever that personal information and release the remainder of the records to the applicant within 60 days
The Office of the Chief Coroner’s request that an inquiry under Part 5 not be held is denied. Any party making an application under s. 56 must do more than simply assert that an exception applies. It must clearly demonstrate that its case meets the criteria established in previous orders. A mere belief that one’s case is strong is not the basis for a s. 56 application.
Commissioner’s ruling on attempt by unions representing third-party teacher to argue applicability of discretionary disclosure exceptions not applied by the public body.
Applicant requested her ICBC claim files and files from her ICBC-appointed lawyer. ICBC disclosed many records, but refused access to others. Sections 14, 17 and 22 found to apply to some other remaining information. Section 14 found not to apply to two pages and s. 22 found not to apply to several records.
The applicant may not make a request for access to her deceased’s mother’s records held by the PGT because the PGT is still the committee. As long as an individual has a committee, then, deceased or not, s. 3(b) of the Regulation applies, and only the PGT may exercise the personal information rights accorded under FIPPA on behalf of the individual. The PGT is required to refuse the applicant access to the records except for those portions which contain the personal information of the applicant and the disclosure of which would not unreasonably invade the personal privacy of a third party.
Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56.
The applicant sought records relating to development of a rapid transit line connecting Richmond, Vancouver International Airport and downtown Vancouver. Sections 12(1) and 22(1) require the Premier’s Office to refuse disclosure and ss. 14, 16(1) and 17(1)(e) authorize it to refuse disclosure
West Vancouver Police Association requested access to report of Ministry’s review of West Vancouver Police Department. Ministry disclosed report in severed form, withholding portions under s. 22. Ministry ordered to disclose most of withheld information.
Applicant sought access to minutes of in camera Inquiry Committee meetings and listing of actions related to a complaint filed against him. Committee withheld entirety of responsive records under ss. 3(1)(b), 3(1)(h), 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22. Records withheld under s. 3(1)(b) do not meet required criteria. Committee entitled to withhold only substance of deliberations under s. 12(3)(b). Sections 3(1)(h), 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22 found not to apply. Public body ordered to re-consider its decision to withhold under s. 12(3)(b).
The disclosure of notes prepared by a third party for a meeting with a Ministry official about a subdivision issue, is not an invasion of a third-party’s privacy, nor does the disclosure meet the test in s. 21.
The applicant requested information about a credit search conducted about her. The applicant is entitled to all personal information about her provided it will not reveal the identity of a third party. Section 22 requires the public body to withhold information which could identify a third party. Section 22 does not require the public body to withhold the name of an employee of a private business.
The applicant requested information relating to two named lawyers with whom he had past dealings. The Law Society is authorized to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of certain information, is authorized to refuse access to information protected by solicitor-client privilege and is required to refuse access to third-party personal information.
The applicants requested a judgement of inquiry regarding an individual’s death. The OCC provided a severed copy of the judgement citing s. 22 as a basis for withholding information. The applicants argued that public interest and public health and safety required the full record be released. The OCC stated that disclosure would unfairly damage the reputation of third parties. Section 25 does not require the OCC to disclose information and s. 22 requires it to refuse disclosure.
The applicant requested access to records concerning the public body’s response to a complaint relating to the protection of a stream. The public body released records but refused to provide information that would reveal the identity of a third-party complainant. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the disputed information.
The applicant requested employment records relating to herself for a specific period of time. The Ministry disclosed records, withholding some information under ss. 13(1) and 22. Applicant requested review of severing and Ministry’s search. Ministry disclosed most s. 13(1) information and some records it had inadvertently originally missed in copying records. The Ministry has complied with its s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and properly withheld third-party personal information under s. 22. No order is necessary regarding s. 13(1).
The applicant requested all records relating to him at the WCRB. The WCRB correctly decided that certain of the responsive records are excluded from the Act’s scope by ss. 3(1)(b) and (c). The WCRB’s search for records was adequate and met its s. 6(1) duty. The WCRB also correctly decided that other records and information were excepted from disclosure by ss. 14 and 22 of the Act.
Applicant requested copies of records created during School District’s investigation of applicant’s complaint about another employee, i.e., the investigation report, a list of witnesses interviewed, the applicant’s submissions and interview notes, the respondent’s submissions and interview notes and the investigator’s rough notes of witness interviews. The School District is not required by s. 22(1) to withhold information that would identify the employee complained about or the applicant’s allegations. The School District is also not required, in this case, to withhold the investigator’s findings that each of the applicant’s allegations were not substantiated, because, as material in the inquiry confirms, the applicant knows this information. The School District must, however, withhold the third party’s personal information consisting of what witnesses said (or the investigator observed) about the third party’s workplace behaviour or actions, as this is the third party’s employment history. The School District also must withhold information that would identify witnesses who supplied personal information of the applicant or the third party in confidence. The School District must provide the applicant with a summary of that information under s. 22(5).
Applicant sought access to list of companies which had been the subject of complaints to FICOM from 1995 to 2000. FICOM is not required to refuse access under s. 21 or s. 22. FICOM has not established that “commercial information” was supplied to it in confidence. Nor has it shown that disclosure could reasonably be expected to significantly harm third parties’ competitive positions nor a reasonable expectation that similar information would no longer be supplied. FICOM also failed to establish that disclosure would reveal the identities of complainants and thus s. 22 does not apply. Applicant failed to advance s. 25 arguments. Section 25 found in any case not to apply.
Applicant is not entitled to have access to complete copies of résumés submitted by third-party consultants to the WCB. Presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22(3)(d) is not rebutted by any relevant circumstances, including fair determination of the applicant’s rights or subjecting the WCB to public scrutiny. As an exception, applicant is entitled to portions of records showing the professional qualifications held by the counsellors, which they have held out to the WCB and the public for business purposes. WCB raised s. 17 for the first time in its initial submission. WCB not entitled to raise that discretionary exception at inquiry stage.
Applicant requested her personal information from BCIT, which failed to respond to her access request. BCIT responded, almost a year and a half later, after intervention by this Office. BCIT’s response addressed only part of the applicant’s request. BCIT found not to have complied with its s. 6(1) duty to respond without delay and to respond openly, accurately and completely. BCIT found not to have responded when required by s. 7(1). Reasons given for response were inadequate. BCIT ordered to conduct further searches and to respond to applicant’s request completely and accurately. Conditions imposed respecting timing of further search and of response to applicant. Having failed to make submissions in inquiry, BCIT found not to be authorized by ss. 13, 15 or 17 to refuse to disclose information in the one disputed record. Minimal third party personal information in record appropriately severed under s. 22(1).
Applicant sought copies of legal invoices and correspondence between Township employee and Township regarding Township’s payment of employee’s legal fees and requests for payment of such fees. Requested information subject to solicitor client privilege, which had not been waived by client employee. Personal information appropriately withheld from two records.
Applicant requested names of public body staff who allegedly made commitments or promises about payment of funeral expenses for a deceased public body employee. Applicant also sought copy of a legal opinion given regarding payment of funeral expenses. Public body authorized to withhold legal opinion under s. 14. Public body authorized to withhold only some information under s. 14, but not required to withhold identities and positions of public body’s staff under s. 22.
Allegation that public body failed to assist applicant not established. Evidence did not establish disappearance or suppression of requested records. Public body adopted a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the applicant's requests and was justified in applying s. 14 to notes of telephone advice from its lawyer and s. 22 to names of confidential referees. It was permissible for the public body to combine three requests for closely related material for the purpose of calculating 'free' location and retrieval time under s. 75(2)(a) of the Act.
Applicant sought copies of his personnel file, including records of BC Transit's response to the harassment complaints he filed. BC Transit severed information under sections 13 and 22 of the Act. In addition, it withheld 165 pages under Section 14 of the Act. Applicant entitled to 4 pages of information formerly severed under Section 13 and 22. BC Transit appropriately applied sections 13, 22 and 14 to the other records.
Applicant not entitled to third party personal information relating to disciplinary investigation of police officer. Applicant entitled to personal information revealing identity of Chief Constable administering part of process and police officer presiding over process. Applicant entitled to information disclosing identity of police force involved, date and other general information.
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 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 access to records exchanged between Thompson Rivers University (TRU) and its legal counsel regarding an investigation into a workplace complaint a TRU faculty member made about the applicant. TRU disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 19 (disclosure harmful to individual health and safety), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 14 and required to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 22. As TRU’s withheld the same information under s. 19 and s. 22, the adjudicator did not consider s. 19.
An applicant requested 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.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for records related to the Ministry’s inspection of the applicant’s property. The Ministry responded to the applicant and withheld some records and information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information and records it withheld under s. 14 and required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 13(1).
An applicant requested records from Thompson Rivers University (TRU) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). TRU disclosed the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that TRU was authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under s. 14 and most of the information it withheld under s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that TRU was required to withhold most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered TRU to disclose to the applicant the information it was not authorized or required to withhold.
An applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for access to all documents sent to or received by a specific TRU employee that mention the applicant. TRU disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 19(1)(a) (disclosure harmful to individual safety) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU is required to withhold almost all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that TRU was not required or permitted to withhold a small amount of information under any FIPPA exception to disclosure and required TRU to provide this information to the applicant. Section 19(1)(a) was not at issue with respect to any information that the adjudicator required TRU to provide to the applicant.
An applicant requested records from the Northern Health Authority (Authority) containing information about COVID-19 outbreaks at work camps. In response, the Authority released some information but withheld other information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party), and 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to all the information in dispute under that section and that s. 13 applied to some of the information in dispute under that section. The adjudicator also found the Authority was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 21(1). However, the adjudicator found that none of the sections of FIPPA relied on by the Authority applied to the remaining information in dispute and ordered the Authority to release that information to the applicant.
An applicant requested access to all records relating to his child from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). The Ministry refused to disclose information on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the child in accordance with s. 5(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 3(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation (Regulation), and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that the applicant was authorized to make the request on behalf of the child and that the Ministry was required to refuse access to some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
The applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (the University) for access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to all communications mentioning him that were sent to or received by a named individual. The University provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the University was authorized to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and required to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the University to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
The executor of a deceased person’s estate requested the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) provide copies of the deceased’s hospital and nursing home records. VIHA withheld some personal information of third parties on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the third parties’ personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed the decision of VIHA to withhold the information.
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 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 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 records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about his interactions with outpatient services. The Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information from them under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires Island Health to refuse to disclose the information.
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.
An applicant requested that The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia (Association) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to certain records where he is mentioned or is otherwise identifiable. The Association withheld information in the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, the Association’s application of ss. 13 (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator also confirmed the association’s application of s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and found s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) did not apply to the remaining information. The adjudicator ordered the Association to disclose some information to the applicant.
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 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.
The Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisectionist Society of BC (applicant) made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to Simon Fraser University (SFU) for records relating to the use of animals in research and training protocols. SFU provided the applicant with access to some records, withholding some information under s. 19(1) (harm to personal safety). It also withheld some records as outside the scope of FIPPA in accordance with s. 3(3)(i)(iii) (research materials of person carrying out research at a post-secondary educational body). The adjudicator confirmed the decision of SFU to withhold records and information under s. 3(3)(i) and s. 19(1).
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.
An applicant requested that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records related to a motor vehicle accident. ICBC provided some information in response but withheld other information under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, ICBC’s application of ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (legal advice and litigation privilege), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator also confirmed ICBC’s application of settlement privilege which is a common law exception to disclosure. The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose some information to the applicant.
The applicant requested all minutes of City Council and committee meetings, emails, and social media messages that included any variation of her name from the City of Pitt Meadows (the City). The City disclosed the records but withheld some information under ss. (13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 14 in full, and its decision under ss. 22(1) in part, and ordered the City to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1) to the applicant.
An applicant requested that the Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to her deceased mother’s (the deceased) medical records. Fraser Health refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make the request on behalf of the deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation (Regulation). Fraser Health also refused the applicant access to the records under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased. The adjudicator further found that disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the BC Securities Commission (BCSC) for records relating to the BCSC’s penalty collection rate, amendments to the Securities Act, and the BCSC’s collection action against the applicant. The BCSC withheld the information in dispute under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(1), 13(1), and 22(1) applied to some, but not all, of the information in dispute and ordered the BCSC to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under those sections. The adjudicator also ordered the BCSC to reconsider its decision to withhold certain information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient evidence that the BCSC considered all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to withhold that information.
An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related
to an external investigation of the University’s treatment of the applicant. The University
disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator
determined that the University was authorized to withhold all the information withheld
under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some information withheld under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered the University to disclose that information.
An applicant requested access to records related to the Metro Vancouver Transit Police’s (MVTP’s) investigation into a dispute in which he was involved. The MVTP disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information and records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the MVTP was required to withhold most of the information under s. 22(1) and ordered the MVTP to disclose the remainder of the information.
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.
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.
The applicant asked the Board of Education of School District No. 43 (School District) to provide him with access to information about his child’s educational supports and assistance. The School District disclosed responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the School District was authorized to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) and was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the School District to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to the applicant.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to all medical records relating to his mother (the deceased). FHA refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased in accordance with s. 5 of FIPPA. FHA also refused him access to the records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased and disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records relating to the investigation of claims of bullying and harassment. These claims were made by one member of the Town of Qualicum Beach’s (Town) Council against other members of the Council. The Town withheld information from the responsive records under various sections of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, the Town’s decision under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator held that s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) did not apply to the information not properly withheld under s. 13(1). The adjudicator ordered the Town to disclose the information it was not authorized to withhold under s. 13(1) or required to withhold under s. 22(1).
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).
An applicant requested records created pursuant to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which requires crown counsel to report adverse judicial comments on a peace officer’s testimony. The Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) withheld information in two of the responsive records under s. 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry also decided that the name of the involved police officer could be disclosed, and notified the police officer’s employer, who requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The applicant and another party were also invited to participate in the inquiry.
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.
An applicant requested access to a record relating to the investigation of a professional practice complaint he filed against a nurse. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Coastal Health) withheld the entire responsive record under ss. 19 (harm to individual or public safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found Coastal Health properly withheld the record.
An applicant requested from the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) a copy of a police report concerning him in its possession. VIHA withheld portions of the report under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that ss. 22(1) applied to all of the information at issue and required VIHA to refuse to disclose it.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
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.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to a residential property. The City of Burnaby (City) withheld information in the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. In some cases, the City applied one or more FIPPA exceptions to the same information. The City also argued some information was not responsive to the applicant’s access request and, therefore, could be withheld. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) review the City’s decision to refuse access. The adjudicator found the information withheld by the City as “non-responsive” was in fact responsive to the access request and ordered the City to disclose some of that information. The adjudicator also determined the City could not withhold any of the information at issue under s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences). However, the adjudicator decided the City properly applied s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) to some of the information withheld from the responsive records. The City was ordered to disclose the information that the adjudicator determined could not be withheld under a FIPPA exception to access.
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 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.
An applicant requested access to all records held by the Ministry naming two individuals and created within a specific date range. The Ministry refused access to some information in the responsive records under several exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA but only s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) was in issue during the inquiry. The adjudicator confirmed that the Ministry correctly applied s. 22 to most of the information in dispute but ordered the Ministry to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to information revealing the total legal fees incurred by The Corporation of the District of Summerland (the District) at an arbitration and appeal for an employment law matter. The District withheld all of the information pertaining to legal fees under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (protection of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the aggregate sum of legal fees could not be withheld under s. 14 because there was no reasonable possibility that disclosure could reveal privileged communications. The adjudicator further found that the aggregated sum of fees was not personal information, so the District was not required or permitted to refuse disclosure under s. 22(1). Finally, the adjudicator required the District under s. 6(2) to create a record containing the aggregate sum because doing so would not unreasonably interfere with the District’s operations.
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 applicant requested access to records relating to his employment held by the Public Service Agency (PSA). PSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in them under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found PSA was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information withheld under s. 13 (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator also found PSA was required to refuse the applicant access to some, but not all, of the information withheld under s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered PSA to disclose the remainder to the applicant.
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 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.
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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of Victoria (University) for access to records containing information about the University's response to an allegation that the applicant breached the University's Sexualized Violence Prevention and Response Policy. The University withheld the majority of information in the records citing s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal information) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the University was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the University to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the implementation of medical assistance in dying practices and procedures by the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). FHA disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information under several exceptions in Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) applied to some, but not all, of the information FHA withheld. The adjudicator ordered FHA to disclose the information which was not covered by ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), or 22(1) of FIPPA.
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.
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.
The applicant made a request to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records about her employment with PHSA. PHSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that PHSA correctly applied ss. 14 and 22(1). As a result, it was unnecessary to consider s. 13.
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).
The applicant requested access to all documents relating to him and his complaint against a named physician. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the College correctly applied 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).
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 applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the application and appointment of a specific BC Supreme Court master. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under multiple exceptions to access. In some cases, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information in the responsive records under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. Given their finding on s. 22(1), the adjudicator did not need to consider whether s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) also applied to the same information. The Ministry was ordered to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under FIPPA. The Ministry also argued, and the adjudicator confirmed, that some of the responsive records fell outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(3)(c); therefore, the applicant had no right to access those records under FIPPA.
An applicant made a request 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 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 requested records related to a 2015 meeting attended by a representative of Destination British Columbia (DBC). DBC released the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 21(2) (information gathered for determining tax liability or collecting a tax), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 21(2). The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Finally, the adjudicator confirmed DBC’s decision to withhold a small amount of information under s. 13(1).
An applicant requested records relating to two courses offered at Simon Fraser University (SFU). SFU responded providing access to records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that SFU had correctly applied s. 22(1) to the personal information at issue, but that it had incorrectly applied it to information that was not personal information. The adjudicator ordered SFU to disclose the information that was not personal information.
A journalist requested reviews, reports, audits and analyses concerning COVID-19 outbreaks at two health care facilities of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA). VCHA disclosed some records but withheld information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a system), s. 17(1) (financial harm to the public body) 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 VCHA to disclose the remainder. He found that ss. 15(1)(l) and 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and ordered VCHA to disclose it.
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.
An applicant requested the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) give him access to his registrant file. The College refused access to some of the records and parts of records under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and pursuant to s. 26.2 of the Health Professions Act (HPA). The adjudicator finds that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 26.2 of the HPA apply to most of the information in dispute. The adjudicator orders the College to give the applicant access to the information to which those provisions do not apply.
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.
A journalist requested access to CCTV recordings from two cameras at a BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo) facility. The recording included the last 23 seconds of the life of a film production motorcycle stunt driver. PavCo withheld the recordings under s. 22(1) on the grounds that disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. The adjudicator upheld the decision of PavCo to deny access to the records.
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.
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 made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Vancouver (City) for access to correspondence about the City’s decision to issue a formal public apology regarding the Komagata Maru incident. The City decided to release most of the information in the records, despite the objections of a third party (Third Party) whose personal information appears in the records. The Third Party requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold all of the records. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) does not apply to the information in dispute and ordered the City to disclose that information to the applicant.
An employee made two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA). One was for a report of an investigation into a respectful workplace complaint and associated records. The other was for her personal information relating to job competitions. VIHA withheld some of the information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy of a third party). The adjudicator found that VIHA had correctly applied s. 13(1) to some of the information. The adjudicator ordered VIHA to disclose the rest of the information to which it applied s. 13(1). The adjudicator confirmed VIHA’s decision to apply s. 22(1).
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).
The applicant requested all of the records relating to her treatment at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital. The Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 22(1)
(unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information in
dispute but ordered Interior Health to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
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.
The applicant requested records about himself from his employer, BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS). BCEHS provided 6,121 pages of responsive records, but withheld information in the records under ss. 3(3)(h) (scope of FIPPA), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). BCEHS also withheld a small amount of information under common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator confirmed BCEHS’s decisions with respect to ss. 3(3)(h), 13(1), 14, and (with one exception) s. 22. The adjudicator ordered BCEHS, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the records withheld under settlement privilege for the purpose of deciding this issue on the merits.
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry). The Ministry withheld some information under s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) and s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute under those exceptions. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the information in dispute considered under that exception.
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 requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). In response, the Ministry provided 8,936 pages of responsive records, withholding some information under a number of different exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under ss. 13(1), and 14 and some of the information under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) and 18(a). The Ministry was required to withhold some information in dispute under ss. 12(1) and 22(1). However, the Ministry was required to disclose some of the information it withheld under ss. 12(1), 16(1)(a)(iii), 18(a) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 16(1)(c) did not apply to the information considered under that section. The Ministry also withheld some information under common law settlement privilege, but did not provide the records in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to produce the records for the purpose of adjudicating settlement privilege. The applicant also complained that the Ministry did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for text messages and deleted emails.
The applicants made separate requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) for access to records containing information about them relating to their operation of a foster home. The Ministry withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under ss. 15(1)(d) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The Ministry also decided that some records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(c). The adjudicator determined that some of the disputed records are beyond the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c). Regarding the other records, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold most, but not all, of the disputed information under s. 22(1) and that, given this finding, it is not necessary to also consider s. 15(1)(d).
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 journalist requested records related to the BCCS’s investigation into the death of a third party. The BCCS initially withheld all of the records under s. 64(1) of the Coroners Act. The BCCS then disclosed the records but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of 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 ordered the BCCS to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under s. 22(1).
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.
An applicant asked the Office of the Premier and the BC Public Service
Agency (public bodies) for records related to a leave of absence without pay taken by a former named employee. The public bodies withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The investigator found that s. 22(1) applied to all of the information in dispute and that the public bodies were required to withhold it.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to an agreement between the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) and two named individuals, along with other related documents. The Ministry withheld the entire agreement on the basis it was
protected by settlement privilege, but provided the applicant with partial access to other records by withholding information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the agreement on the basis of settlement privilege, but that it was required to withhold the agreement under s. 22(1). The adjudicator also found the Ministry was required to withhold most of the remaining information at issue under s. 22(1). The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
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 applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
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 applicant requested copies of records relating to a call to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) about him, including an audio recording of the call. The VPD disclosed records, including a transcript of the audio recording, but withheld some information under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that the VPD had correctly applied s. 22 and ordered it to withhold the information.
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. 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(1).
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.
A journalist asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for records related to a news release on fraud cases that ICBC had investigated. ICBC disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). ICBC later argued that many of the records were court records and thus excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(a) (now s. 3(3)(a)). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information in dispute (drivers’ names and court and police file numbers) and ordered ICBC to refuse the journalist access to this information. The adjudicator also found that the issue of whether s. 3(1)(a) applies to some of the records was moot, as ICBC had already disclosed them in severed form.
The applicant 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 made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a cabinet briefing note and candidate profile and declaration for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive record, 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 information about short-term rental accommodation
and Airbnb in the City of Vancouver. The City refused access to the requested
information under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 19(1) (harm to individual safety), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to a small amount of the
information under ss. 15(1)(f), 19(1)(a) and 21(1). However, none of the exceptions applied to the rest of the disputed information and the City was ordered to disclose it to the applicant.
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 records showing the days worked and days absent for a particular employee of the Office of the Premier during two stipulated periods. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) refused to disclose information in the responsive records under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information at issue and ordered the Ministry to withhold the information.
An applicant requested from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) records containing their personal information. VicPD 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 VicPD had correctly applied the exceptions to disclosure and confirmed its decision to withhold the information at issue.
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.
The applicant requested the full names of the members of a community panel the City of Vancouver (City) convened to make a recommendation about a new
arterial road. The City decided to release all the names of the panelists, despite the objections of one panelist (the Panelist). The Panelist requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold their name. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires the City to withhold the Panelist’s name.
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).
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo), the Evergreen Line and the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) provided partial access to the records by withholding information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1)(a) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (disclosure harmful to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 12(1), 14 and 22(1), but was not authorized or required to withhold the remaining information in dispute.
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.
An applicant requested records from the City of Vancouver (City) under the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) related to three “rezoning
enquiries” covering the period from April 2016 to January 2019. The City disclosed records, severing information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 15(1)(l)
(harm to security of property or system), 17(1) (harm to economic interests of public
body) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The applicant disputed
that severing and also complained that the City interpreted his request too narrowly and
did not conduct an adequate search for the responsive records. The adjudicator found
that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some information. The adjudicator also found that
s. 13(1) did not apply to other information and ordered the City to disclose it. It was not
necessary to consider s. 13(1) for some information or to consider ss. 17(1) and 15(1)(l) at all. Finally, the adjudicator found that the City complied with its duty under s. 6(1) to
interpret the request and conduct an adequate search.
The applicant requested a variety of information from Community Living
British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld
other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA).
This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to
ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client
privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no
disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken
together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or
required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.
The applicant made requests under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Citizens’
Services (Ministries) for access to records containing any and all allegations made by a
named individual against the applicant, either in writing or in an audio recording. The
Ministries released the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some records
and information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal
privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested a review of the Ministries’ decisions. The
adjudicator concluded that the Ministries were required to refuse to disclose some of the
disputed information under s. 22(1), including most of two audio recordings, but were
required to disclose the balance of the disputed information to the applicant.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of British Columbia (UBC) for access to an investigation report. The report concerns allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment that the applicant made against a former UBC employee. UBC decided to disclose some of the information in the report. The former UBC employee argued that the disputed information should be withheld under s. 22(1) of FIPPA because its disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy. The adjudicator found the disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy and confirmed UBC’s decision that it is not required under s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose the disputed information to the applicant.
The public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file
under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to
public body’s financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply because the records had been in existence for 10 or more years, so s. 13(3) was engaged. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision, in part, to refuse access under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1) and ordered the public body to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 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 applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) file on its investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. The VPD disclosed some of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 15 (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to the information in dispute and ordered the VPD to refuse the applicant access to it. It was not necessary to consider s. 15.
An applicant requested access to all records about himself held by BC Transit. BC Transit withheld some information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). This order addresses BC Transit’s decision to withhold the name of one of its employees under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the name of the employee in the circumstances.
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.
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.
The applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investigation that led to the well known 2012 Ministry employee firings. The Ministry provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This order considers ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 applied, and that s. 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that she found s. 22 did not apply to.
A journalist requested access to the emails of TransLink’s interim CEO for a specified five-day period in August 2015. TransLink disclosed most of the information, withholding small amounts of information, such as email addresses and a street address. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) did not apply to most of the information in dispute, as it was “contact information”, and ordered TransLink to disclose this information to the journalist. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to the interim CEO’s home telephone number and a small amount of information about a consultant’s employment history, and ordered TransLink to withhold this information.
An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal information. The public body refused access to information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that ss. 13,14 and 22 applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 17 did not. The adjudicator ordered the public body to disclose a small amount of information to the applicant.
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 access to correspondence between a named employee of the City of Vancouver (City) and three other individuals. The City disclosed 31 pages of emails, withholding some information under ss. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the City to disclose this information. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered the City to disclose the information to which she found s. 22(1) does not apply. The applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) requires disclosure of the withheld information but the adjudicator found that it does not.
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 requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
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.
An applicant requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (College). The College withheld information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the College applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the College was required to withhold some information under ss. 13 and 14, but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13, 14 and 22 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(5) was not applicable since a third party did not confidentially supply any information about the applicant. However, the adjudicator ordered the College to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient explanation and evidence that the College exercised its discretion on proper grounds and considered all relevant factors.
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.
In Order F20-18, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency) to produce 20 pages of records to the OIPC so that she could make a decision respecting the public body’s application of s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) to those 20 pages.The public body complied, producing the records for the adjudicator’s review. The public body also reconsidered its application of s. 22 to 18 pages of the records and decided to disclose those pages to the applicant. The adjudicator confirmed that s. 22 did not require the public body to withhold those 18 pages and found that s. 22 applied to the information withheld under that section in the remaining two pages.
An applicant requested information related to a specific motor vehicle accident claim from ICBC. ICBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several exceptions to access in FIPPA. At inquiry, the adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision to apply these FIPPA exceptions to most of the information in dispute and ordered ICBC to disclose the rest to the applicant.
The applicant made a request to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to records relating to an investigation the FHA conducted under the Adult Guardianship Act. The FHA withheld the information in dispute under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the FHA was not authorized to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 14 and that the FHA was required to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 22.
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.
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.
A physician requested copies of all information the Medical Services Commission (MSC) held about him. The MSC disclosed the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The physician asked that an inquiry beheld to determine if s. 22(1) applies to the patients’ names and Personal Health Numbers (PHNs) in the records. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to patients’ names and PHNs.
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 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.
The applicant requested documents from BC Hydro relating to contractors who bid for a construction project. BC Hydro withheld some information from two pages under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed BC Hydro’s decision.
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 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.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) to records related to her and her employment for a specified time period. The Ministry withheld information in the records on the basis ss. 13(1), 15(1)(g) and/or s. 22(1) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply to the records since the information did not qualify as advice or recommendations, but the Ministry was authorized to withhold some information under s. 15(1)(g) as it was related to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The adjudicator also determined that disclosing some of the information in dispute would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy and the Ministry was required to withhold it under s. 22(1). Lastly, the adjudicator found the Ministry did not fulfill its obligations under s. 22(5) to provide the applicant with a summary of personal information supplied in confidence about the applicant in a particular record and ordered it to do so.
An employee requested his personnel file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The City of Surrey (City) disclosed many records but also withheld information related to its investigation of his off-duty conduct under several exceptions in FIPPA: ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations); 15(1) (harm to law enforcement); 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations); 17(1) (harm to public body?s financial or economic interests); 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety); and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 16(1)(b) applied to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that ss. 15(1)(a) and (d), 17(1), 19(1)(a) and (b) and 22(1) did not apply to the remaining withheld information and ordered that the City disclose this information to the employee.
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.
An applicant requested access to records about a meeting between the former Minister of Natural Gas Development and executives of a company proposing to build a liquefied natural gas processing and export facility. The Ministry disclosed records to the applicant, but withheld some information in them pursuant to exceptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator disagreed with the applicant’s claim that the Ministry was required to disclose the information under s. 25 (disclosure in public interest). The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body) and 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) applied to most of the information but s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) did not. The Ministry was ordered to give the applicant access to some of the information in dispute.
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 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.
The applicant requested records relating to a complaint that he made about a lawyer employed by the Law Society. The Law Society withheld some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed that the Law Society is authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 14 and required, in part, to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 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.
An interest group requested access to records regarding the Ministry of
Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development’s Wolf Management
Plan. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to a small amount of
information but that ss. 15(1)(f), 16(1)(a)(iii) and 19(1)(a) do not apply to other
information (principally names and email addresses of Ministry employees) and ordered
the Ministry to disclose this information to the applicant.
A pharmacy’s lawyer requested copies of complaints and allegations about the pharmacy’s business practices. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(d) (reveal identity of confidential source of law enforcement information) and s. 22 (harm to third-party personal privacy) applied to almost all of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that s. 19(1)(a) (harm to safety) did not apply to the names of three Ministry employees and ordered the Ministry to disclose this information to the lawyer.
The applicant made a request to the District of Sechelt for all correspondence, reports or notes relating to incidents that occurred on his property and that were the subject of complaints by third parties. The District of Sechelt refused to disclose portions of the records under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute and that ss. 15(1)(c) and (d) did not apply.
A mother and her daughter asked for access to records related to the daughter’s grade school education. The Ministry refused access to several records because they were outside the scope of FIPPA and to some information in other records because FIPPA exceptions applied. The adjudicator found that s. 61(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act applied to several records, so FIPPA did not. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to refuse access to information under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s.14 (solicitor client privilege), and confirmed, in part, the Ministry’s decision to refuse access to information under s. 22 (harm to third party personal privacy). The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information to which s. 22 did not apply.
The applicant requested records that relate to the City of Vancouver’s decision to discipline the applicant at work. The City of Vancouver refused access to portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal advice or recommendations under s. 13 and that it would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the City is authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under s.13. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 applies to some of the information but that that the City is required to disclose the remaining information.
A physician requested records of an assessment of his medical practice conducted by the College’s Physician Practice Enhancement Program. The College refused the applicant access to the records under s. 26.2(1) (quality assurance committee records) of the Health Professions Act. It also refused to disclose the records under s. 13 (policy advice or recommendations) and s. 22 (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the College was not required or authorized by any of those provisions to refuse to disclose the records to the applicant. The College was ordered to disclose the records to the applicant.
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested records related to communications strategies regarding the Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI). The University of British Columbia (UBC) disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed UBC’s decision regarding s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered UBC to disclose other information to which s. 22(1) does not apply.
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.
A BC Transit driver requested the dates of hire of his fellow drivers to pursue a dispute with his union over seniority lists. BC Transit refused access to the information under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the dates of hire and ordered BC Transit to refuse access to them.
The 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 copies of a survey conducted by a co-worker and any related records. The public body located a survey cover letter, survey questions, the survey responses, and the names of the individuals who completed the survey. The public body disclosed some of the survey questions and responses to the applicant and withheld the rest under s. 22 of FIPPA (disclosure harmful to personal privacy). The public body also located a related workplace investigation report and withheld it in its entirety under ss. 22 and 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s ss. 14 and 22 decisions regarding some of the information. However, the adjudicator found that the public body was not required to refuse to disclose some information under s. 22 and ordered the public body to disclose that information to the applicant.
An applicant 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 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.
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.
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
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 related to the discovery of asbestos at a building where he had worked for a time. The Ministry disclosed the records with the exception of a small amount of information related to other employees, which it withheld under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to this information and ordered the Ministry to withhold it.
An applicant requested access to records of communications between a named physician and the BC Coroners Service (“BCCS”). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy) applied to the withheld information, as it consisted of personal opinions of or about the physician. The adjudicator ordered BCCS to withhold the information.
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, 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.
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.
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.
A journalist requested copies of Treasury Board submissions related to funding BC Place renovations. The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) applied to most of the information in dispute and that s. 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) applied to the rest. The adjudicator ordered the public bodies to withhold the information under these sections.
The applicant asked Langara College for grades assigned to him by classmates in a business course, as well as those that his classmates assigned to each other. The College refused access on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the applicant’s classmates under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The Adjudicator agreed, but found that the College was required to give the applicant a summary of his grades in a manner that would not identify his classmates.
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.
The applicant requested the BC Coroners Service file on its investigation
into the death of a named individual. The Coroners Service disclosed some records but denied access to others under ss. 64(1)(a) and 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act and s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 64(1)(a) or 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act apply to most of the records. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 of FIPPA applies to a number
of records, with the exception of three records that were provided to the Coroners Service by the applicant. The adjudicator ordered the Coroners Service to disclose those three records to the applicant.
The applicant requested information regarding the Civil Forfeiture Office. The Ministry withheld the names of the Civil Forfeiture Office’s employees because it believed that disclosure would endanger their lives or physical safety (s. 15(1)(f)) and disclosure could reasonably be expected to threaten their safety or mental or physical health (s.19(1)(a)). The adjudicator found that neither s. 15(1)(f) nor s. 19(1)(a) authorized refusing to disclose the names of the employees. The Ministry also withheld the résumé of the Civil Forfeiture Office’s former director because it believed that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy (s. 22). The adjudicator found that the former director’s résumé must be withheld under s. 22.
The applicant requested proposals submitted in response to a District of Mission RFP for gravel extraction. At the time of the inquiry, no contract had been awarded in response to the RFP. The District withheld the proposals under s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator required the District to continue to refuse access to most of the information in the proposals but to disclose information that is publicly available or is of a general nature.
The applicant requested information about herself held by BC Ferries, particularly information related to an incident that occurred during her work as an equipment operator. BC Ferries withheld information claiming ss. 13, 15, 19 and 22 of FIPPA exemptions. With the exception of its reliance on s. 13 and a few pages that must be disclosed, BC Ferries properly applied disclosure exemptions to the record.
The applicant requested copies of all resignation letters received by PavCo during the September 2011 to September 2012 operating year. PavCo claimed that it was required under s. 22(1) of FIPPA to refuse disclosure of the letters because they contain personal information that relates to employment, occupational or educational history and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy. PavCo correctly denied the applicant access to the personal information and it must be severed from the remaining portions of the record.
A journalist requested records related to the Provincial Capital Commission’s request for proposals to lease the CPR Steamship Terminal Building in Victoria’s inner harbour. Information was withheld under ss. 13(1), 15(1)(l), 21(1) and 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the majority of the information withheld under s. 13(1) was not advice and recommendations, so it must be disclosed. Regarding s. 15(1)(l), the public body failed to establish the disclosure of architectural drawings could reasonably be expected to harm the building’s security, so they must be disclosed. Regarding s. 21(1), there was no evidence of harm that would result from disclosure of the withheld financial information, and the adjudicator directed that it be provided to the applicant. Finally, the adjudicator ordered disclosure of some of the information that had been withheld under s. 22(1) because it was either not personal information or because disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy.
A journalist requested records relating to medications for the treatment of Adult Macular Degeneration. The Ministries withheld portions of the requested information under ss. 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 of FIPPA. The Assistant Commissioner ordered the public bodies to disclose parts of the withheld information, authorized the public bodies to withhold parts of the withheld information under s. 13, 14, 16, and 17 of FIPPA, and required the public bodies to refuse to disclose parts of the withheld information under ss. 21 and 22 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested records related to his involvement as a suspect in a police investigation. The adjudicator found the VPD was required to withhold most of the information on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The VPD was not required to withhold information relating to the police officers’ actions.
The applicant requested a copy of a violence risk assessment report which examined his interactions with a co-worker. The adjudicator found that BCRTC is authorized to withhold portions of the report on the basis that it reveals advice and recommendations under s. 13(1). However, the adjudicator found that the evidence does not support BCRTC’s claim that disclosure of the remainder of the information could reasonably be expected to threaten the safety or mental or physical health of others under s. 19(1)(a).
A criminology professor requested decisions of the College on physicians disciplined for sexually inappropriate behaviour. The College disclosed a copy of an Agreement in which a physician admitted he had inappropriately hugged and kissed a patient and agreed to the College imposing discipline on him. The College previously made a separate public disclosure of the identity of the physician, a description of the charge against him, and the details of the discipline it imposed. The College withheld, under s. 22(1) of FIPPA, all information identifying the complainant and the physician, as well as the medical, educational and employment history of the physician. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the medical information of the complainant and the medical, educational and employment history of the physician, but not to the identity of the physician, the details of the charge or the terms of the discipline it imposed. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose this information in the Agreement.
The University of British Columbia Law Innocence Project applied for copies of an autopsy report and forensic laboratory report relating to a homicide. BCCS withheld the record under s. 22(1) on the grounds that disclosure of the victim’s medical information would be an unreasonable invasion of her privacy. UBCLIP argued that it required the Reports in order for its contracted forensic expert to complete a full and proper review of the autopsy and form an expert opinion as to whether the conclusions of the Coroner were flawed. It submitted that this circumstance rebutted the presumption that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information and ordered BCCS to withhold the Reports.
A bus driver requested copies of complaints that students made against him regarding his behaviour when transporting them on a school trip. The School District provided him with one record in its entirety and another with all of the information, except for the names of the students, which it withheld under s. 22. The bus driver requested a review in order to obtain access to the names of the students and their contact information. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) of FIPPA applied to the names of the students, because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the students’ personal privacy.
An applicant asked for records that related to an investigation of the City Mayor that resulted in sanctions against the Mayor. The City withheld those records on the grounds that they were subject to solicitor-client privilege and local government confidences and because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy. The Senior Adjudicator found that the lawyer’s communications with the City, which included a legal opinion, the Summary Report of the investigation of the Mayor and the complaint letters, were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Senior Adjudicator also determined that the complaint letters received prior to the City’s request for a legal opinion had an independent existence in City files, having been collected by the City prior to it seeking legal advice. However, the City was still required to withhold the complaint letters because their disclosure would unreasonably invade third-party privacy.
CUPE requested records related to a labour dispute between BC Paramedics and the Emergency and Health Services Commission. The Commission disclosed some records but withheld other information under ss. 12, 13, 14 and 22 of FIPPA. The A/Senior Adjudicator found the records for which the Commission claimed s. 14 were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Commission was also required to refuse to disclose the records for which it claimed s. 22 because disclosure of that information would be an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of certain employees. While the A/Senior Adjudicator determined that the Commission had properly applied ss. 12 and 13 to a number of records, he ordered the Commission to disclose other withheld information because it did not reveal the substance of cabinet deliberations nor did it reveal recommendations or advice by or for a public body.
A journalist requested correspondence between BCLC and a director of a gaming company, who was also a former Chair of the Board of Directors of BCLC. BCLC identified email correspondence between the CEO of BCLC, as he then was, and the director to be responsive to the request and decided to disclose the records to the journalist. BCLC provided notice of the request to the director. The director requested a review on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA and would harm the interests of one of his businesses under s. 21. Section 22 applies only to the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties. The journalist argues that s. 25 of FIPPA requires disclosure of the correspondence as being in the public interest. Section 25 does not apply to any of the information. Section 21 does not apply to any of the information. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to withhold the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties and disclose the remainder of the information.
The applicant requested access to electronic copies of fields of Foundation Skills Assessment student summary data, in order to carry out statistical research on the data. This included a more recent set of the same data that Order F09-21 and Order F10-29 required the Ministry to disclose to him, plus a second set of data. Despite the previous orders, the Ministry refused access to both sets under s. 22 of FIPPA. The Commissioner found that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied to the first set of data, because the previous orders had decided the issue and that the Ministry could not seek a different result from the previous case. The Commissioner also found that the second set of data did not constitute personal information. The Ministry is not authorized to withhold any of the information.
A physician requested his entire file from the College. In response, the College disclosed over 1,600 pages of records, withholding other information and records under s. 3(1)(c) and s. 22(1). The College is found to have applied s. 3(1)(c) correctly. The College is also found to have applied s. 22(1) correctly to some information. It is ordered to disclose other information to which s. 22(1) was found not to apply, including “contact information” and the applicant’s own personal information.
The applicant requested a police report from the Abbotsford Police which disclosed the report in severed form. The APB was found to have severed information correctly under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 19(1).
A nurse requested a copy of a job reference about her that her employer, a physician, had sent to VIHA. VIHA refused access to the record in its entirety under s. 22(2)(f), saying the physician had supplied the reference in confidence. VIHA did not establish that the physician supplied the reference in confidence. It also did not discharge its burden of proving that the applicant was not entitled to have access to her own personal information. VIHA is ordered to disclose the entire record.
A physician whose employment and hospital privileges at the CWHC are presently suspended requested minutes of the meetings of a medical departmental staff committee of the CWHC. The PHSA responded by providing the applicant with records while withholding information under ss. 12(1), 13, 17 and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. The PHSA subsequently ceased to rely on ss. 13 and 17. Section 51 of the Evidence Act applies to some but not all passages. PHSA ordered to process this latter information under FIPPA. Section 22 of FIPPA applies to the medical information of patients and staff. It also applies to the employment history of staff and prospective staff, including evaluations of work, announcement of retirements and new hiring, the passing of exams and immigration issues. Section 22 does not apply to the professional opinions that identifiable physicians expressed relating to the operation of the CWHC and the PHSA is ordered to disclose this information.
An applicant requested details of a settlement that a former employee received from the City. The City withheld the settlement agreement in its entirety under s. 22, on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the former employee’s personal privacy. The applicant subsequently narrowed the request to the amount of money the City paid the former employee, as provided in the settlement agreement. Section 22 does not apply to the information withheld, because disclosure is desirable for public scrutiny. The City is ordered to disclose the financial amount paid to the former employee.
Adjudicator denied the Abbotsford Police Department's request that this matter not proceed to inquiry.
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested records of WorkSafeBC’s investigation into the incident. WorkSafeBC disclosed most of the information, except the identifying information of several individuals. Section 22 found not to apply to most of the withheld information and WorkSafeBC ordered to disclose it.
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested the records of the NWPB investigation into the incident. NWPB disclosed much of the information. Section 22(1) found not to apply to most of the information withheld under that exception and NWPB ordered to disclose it, subject to reconsideration of s. 15(1)g). Third parties found not to be “confidential sources of law enforcement information” and s. 15(1)(d) therefore does not apply. Some information relates to or was used in the “exercise of prosecutorial discretion”. However New Westminster Police Board found not to have exercised discretion properly in applying s.15(1)(g) and is ordered to reconsider its decision.
Adjudicator granted BC Housing’s request that this matter not proceed to inquiry.
The applicant requested salary and consulting fees paid to a TransLink employee. These payments are considered remuneration of an employee of a public body for the purpose of s. 22(4)(e). Disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the third party, and, therefore, TransLink must disclose the requested information.
The applicant requested salary information for all union-exempt employees for a two-year period and other payment information concerning a former union-exempt TransLink employee. These payments are considered remuneration of an employee of a public body for the purpose of s. 22(4)(e). Disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the third party, and, therefore, TransLink must disclose the requested information.
Just before compliance with Order F09-21 was due, the Ministry requested ?clarification? of the order, suggesting there were difficulties complying with it. The senior adjudicator re-opened the order to consider submissions from the parties on the issues the Ministry raised. The Ministry argued that disclosure of the narrowed data as ordered would unreasonably invade the privacy of students whose FSA results were the subject of the order. The applicant argued that Order F09-21 adequately protected students‘ privacy and that the Ministry should comply with the order. The senior adjudicator concluded that compliance with Order F09-21 would not lead to a significantly greater risk of identifying individual student results and would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The senior adjudicator also clarified what she intended in Order F09-21 and ordered the Ministry to comply with that order.
Three applicants requested access to records related to termination of employees, severance paid and discipline imposed following an investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers into ICBC’s Material Damage Training and Research Facility. An affected third party requested a review of ICBC’s decision to disclose severed records related to him. ICBC’s proposed application of s. 22 found to be correct except for amount of third party’s severance which is ordered disclosed for public scrutiny reasons
Senior Adjudicator's decision to grant the Public Body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be held.
Senior Adjudicator's decision to grant the Public Body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be held.
A student requested records relating to an investigation that resulted in the College terminating her enrolment in her educational program. The College withheld all records in their entirety under s. 22(1). Section 22(1) does not apply to information solely about the applicant or information of which she was already aware from participating in the conversations and actions documented and from receiving other documentation from the College. Section 22(1) applies to some information solely about third parties and of which the applicant was not already aware.
Adjudicator's decision that new evidence does not meet the test for re-opening Order F08-13. Other issues raised on the judicial reviews also do not trigger re-opening. Consideration of remaining records could proceed if order were not stayed.
The applicant requested certain records in the inquest files of two dozen individuals. The Ministry disclosed the Verdict at Coroner‘s Inquest in each case, together with correspondence on the juries‘ recommendations. It withheld a number of records on the basis that they were excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act or, alternatively, under s. 3(1)(b) of FIPPA. It withheld the rest of the records under ss. 15, 16(1)(b) and 22(1). Section 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act does not apply as it was not in effect at the time of the requests or Ministry‘s decision on access. Section 3(1)(b) applies to records related to coroners‘ inquest-related functions but not to other records, including those reflecting administrative activities. Section 3(1)(c) applies to a handful of records, although Ministry did not claim it. Ministry ordered to reconsider its decision to apply s. 16(1)(b) on the grounds that it failed to exercise discretion. It was not necessary to consider s. 15. Section 22(1) found to apply to many but not all other records. Ministry ordered to disclose certain records to which ss. 3(1)(b) and 22(1) do not apply.
A doctor sought records relating to an harassment investigation about him that resulted in the suspension of his hospital privileges. The PHSA argued solicitor-client privilege applied to most of the information and therefore withheld it. Disclosing the remainder, the PHSA contended, would result in the unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy, contrary to s. 22. Legal professional privilege applied to those records for which s. 14 was asserted, and the PHSA was required to withhold the balance of the disputed information under s. 22 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested the résumés of all regional and chief coroners since 1967. The Ministry withheld the records under s. 22(1), on the grounds that disclosure of the employment and educational history of the third parties would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to withhold the requested records.
The VCHA investigated abuse allegations concerning an elderly woman. Four family members related to the elderly woman requested records from the VCHA about themselves because of concerns they were the subject of these allegations. In considering all of the relevant circumstances, the VCHA is required to withhold the information in dispute under s. 22 of FIPPA. Though the Adult Guardianship Act did not trump FIPPA, VCHA’s obligations under that Act were relevant to determining that the disputed records were provided in confidence.
The applicant requested access to electronic copies of 70 fields of Foundation Skills Assessment student summary data for a certain period, in order to carry out statistical research on the data. The Ministry refused access under s. 22. In his inquiry submission, the applicant offered to reduce the scope of his request to a few fields. The Ministry provided three options for disclosure of the narrower set of data, with Personal Education Numbers (PENs) encrypted, which in its view would not unreasonably invade individual student privacy. Ministry is ordered to disclose data in accordance with the option involving disclosure of the narrowed data with PENs encrypted and populations or cells of fewer than five students suppressed.
The applicant requested access to records related to the VPD's homicide investigation of the 1992 death of a named individual. The VPD initially refused access to all of the records under s. 22(3)(b) of FIPPA. It later added other exceptions and disclosed some records. The VPD is required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested access to records related to the 1989 death of a named individual. The VPD initially withheld all records under s. 22(3)(b). It later added other exceptions and disclosed a few pages. The VPD are required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested access to records related to the “police involved shooting” in 2004 of a named individual. The VPD initially refused access to all of the records under s. 22(3)(b). It later added other exceptions and argued that additional records were excluded under s. 66.1 of the Police Act. It also released some records. The VPD are required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1). Certain other pages are excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 66.1 of the Police Act.
The applicant requested salary and severance information concerning SkyTrain employees for the years 2002 to 2005. Section 22(4)(e) does not apply to the requested information in this case. However, TransLink, as the public body responsible for the information, is required to disclose it following consideration of all relevant factors under s. 22, including the need for public scrutiny.
Applicant requested access to records from an investigation into human rights complaints against him. The PHSA disclosed some records and withheld others under s. 3(1)(b) and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. It also took the position that some pages were not in its custody or control. Section 3(1)(b) found not to apply and PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a decision on entitlement to access respecting those pages. Section 51 of the Evidence Act found to apply to other pages. PHSA found to have custody and control of certain pages and ordered to provide applicant with a decision on access regarding those pages. Section 22 found to apply to some information and not to other information. PHSA ordered to provide the applicant with access to information to which s. 22 was found not to apply.
The applicant requested access to records from the APD which disclosed them with some information severed under s. 22. APD is found to have applied s. 22 properly to some information and ordered to disclose other information to which s. 22 does not apply, as it is the applicant’s own personal information and information about APD employees in a work context.
The applicant requested records from a government program that nominates foreign workers for accelerated immigration. The Ministry disclosed the application forms, position descriptions, required qualifications and job offer letters but withheld some information in those records under s. 21 and s. 22. The test for s. 21 was not met. Some information must be withheld under s. 22 to prevent unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy. Some of the information was not “personal information” and must be disclosed.
The Board is not required to refuse disclosure of the target silhouette that the applicant requested. Given the extensive publicity surrounding the record and its contents, its disclosure would not unreasonably invade the third party’s personal privacy. Even without that publicity, in light of the contents of the inscription, disclosure of the record would not unreasonably invade the third party’s personal privacy
Applicants made access requests to a school district for records relating to complaints they had made about their respective children’s teacher. On reconsideration of Order 04-04 and Order 04-05, the school district’s investigations into the allegations against the teacher were not investigations into a possible violation of law under s. 22(3)(b). The applicants were not entitled to information the disclosure of which would reveal the substance of in camera deliberations by the school district under s. 12(3)(b). They were also not entitled to personal information about the teacher, the disclosure of which would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy under s. 22 and which could not reasonably be severed under s. 4(2). The applicants were otherwise entitled to: non-personal information; their own complaint information against the teacher; and the applicants’ or their children’s personal information, including the statements or opinions of the teacher or others about the applicants and their children and their interactions with the teacher.
Senior Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56 regarding s. 22.
Applicant requested records confirming certain types of personal information regarding six individuals in connection with a neighbouring property. ICBC found to have properly refused access to this information under s. 22.
Applicant requested video footage taken of her while she was held in custody at the Vancouver City Jail. The public body refused access on the basis of s. 15(1)(f), s. 15(1)(l) and s. 22. The public body argued that s. 22 required it to withhold information relating to other individuals in custody, but not that relating to officers working at the Jail. Third-party officers whose images were on the videos objected to the disclosure. There was no persuasive evidence that releasing the videos which reveal incidents of interest to the applicant would endanger the life or physical safety of a law enforcement officer or harm the security system of the jail. The public body is required to provide access to some of the video footage, but must withhold information which would identify other individuals held in custody. The fact that the videos will identify the third parties in their employment capacity does not render disclosure of the videos an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
The applicant requested a report of an investigation into an incident involving trees which were mistakenly cut down by UBC employees. UBC released the report, but withheld the names and positions of the employees who were involved in the incident and those who were interviewed in the investigation. UBC is required by s. 22 of FIPPA to withhold the names of the employees
Applicant requested access to a document the third party created to describe his workplace interactions with the applicant. Section 22 found to apply to the third party’s personal information in the record and UVic is required to withhold it. It is not reasonable to sever the record as the personal information of applicant and third party is intertwined. This is not an appropriate case to summarize the record.
The applicant requested records relating to a sale of real property conducted by the Public Guardian and Trustee over 30 years ago on behalf of a client who is now deceased. Most of the records in dispute do not contain personal information. In particular, information about the value of a piece of real property is not personal information. The relatively small amount of personal information that is contained in the records relates to persons who are members of the applicant’s family and are now deceased. The records are quite old, and the personal information is not of a particularly sensitive nature. In the circumstances, s. 22(1) does not require the PGT to refuse the applicant access.
The Office of the Chief Coroner’s request that an inquiry under Part 5 not be held is denied. Any party making an application under s. 56 must do more than simply assert that an exception applies. It must clearly demonstrate that its case meets the criteria established in previous orders. A mere belief that one’s case is strong is not the basis for a s. 56 application.
Applicant requested copy of his son’s suicide note. Public body denied access under s. 22. Relevant circumstances, including applicant’s wish for “closure”, do not rebut the presumed invasion of third-party privacy. Public body is ordered to deny access to the personal information in the note.
The applicant requested records from the British Columbia Archives relating to events that occurred at Woodlands School in the early 1960’s. The BC Archives properly withheld the requested records under s. 22(1) and was not required to release them under s. 25(1)(b).
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Public body disclosed some records and withheld and severed others under ss. 12(1), 13(1), 14, 16, 17 and 22. Public body required to withhold information under s. 12(1) and authorized to withhold information under s. 13(1). With some exceptions, public body authorized to withhold information under s. 14. Public body ordered to disclose some information that it withheld under s. 14 and the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld and severed others under ss. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22. Ministry required to withhold information under s. 12(1) and authorized to withhold information under s. 13(1) and s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information that it withheld under s. 17 and the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Ministry also ordered to conduct another search for responsive records.
Campbell River Indian Band requested records related to its proposed destination casino project. Ministry disclosed some records and withheld information and records under ss. 12, 13, 14, 17, 21 and 22. Ministry found to have properly withheld information under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) and some information it withheld under s. 14. Ministry ordered to disclose some information it withheld under ss. 14 and 21(1).
The applicant news agency requested access to the transcript and audio tape of 911 calls placed by a named individual, as well as a copy of police reports relating to those calls. Section 25(1) does not require disclosure in the public interest. The VPD is not authorized to withhold the information under s. 15(1)(c), but is required to withhold it under s. 22.
Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56.
The applicant requested access to records related to his noise complaint about his neighbour. The District refused the applicant full or partial access to the records on the basis of ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), and 22(1) of FIPPA. The District is authorized by s. 13(1) of FIPPA to refuse the applicant access to a memorandum containing advice and recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The District is not authorized by s. 12(3)(b) to refuse the applicant access to the minutes of an in camera meeting because the evidence does not establish that the meeting was properly held in camera. The District is required to refuse the applicant access to information in the remaining records which is strictly that of the third party, but must not refuse access to information which is not personal information or is the applicant’s own personal information.
Applicant requested his ICBC file related to his claim regarding the loss of his motorhome and its contents by fire. ICBC disclosed some records but refused access to others, including fire investigation records. Sections 14, 15(1)(a) and 17(1) found not to apply. Section 22(1) found not to apply to a small amount of information.
Applicant requested the names of marriage commissioners who resigned after receiving a letter from the Ministry requesting the resignations of any marriage commissioners who felt they could not solemnize same-sex marriages. Ministry is not required to release the information under s. 25(1)(b) and is required to withhold the information under s. 22(1).
Applicant requested records in hands of a named PHSA employee. The PHSA withheld many records on the grounds they are protected by solicitor-client privilege and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. Most records are protected by s. 14 and some information is also protected by s. 22. Small amounts of information are not protected by either exception and must be disclosed.
The applicant requested records of four specified individuals. The PHSA disclosed records and applied ss. 14 and 22 to other records and information. It also said that one individual was not its employee and another had no responsive records. The PHSA is found to have correctly withheld information and records under ss. 14 and 22.
Applicant requested records related to a police investigation into the theft of his vehicle’s licence plates. APD withheld some information under s. 22. Section 22 applies to the information and the APD is required to withhold it.
Applicant requested records from files of two human rights investigators. VCHA disclosed a number of records and withheld and severed others under ss. 14 and 22 of the Act. VCHA found to have applied s. 14 correctly. VCHA found to have applied s. 22 correctly to some information and records but not to others. VCHA ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply.
Applicant requested various records relating to the SPCA, including a report on the care of animals, which the City withheld under s. 22. Personal information can reasonably be severed from the report and withheld. Remaining information found not to be personal information under s. 22. City ordered to disclose record with personal information severed.
The applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report. The public body provided the majority of the report, severing four lines from the 27 pages under s. 22. The severed information was submitted in confidence to the public body and its disclosure would unfairly expose third parties to harm. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the severed information.
Union requested name(s) of person(s) who requested information on leave for union business by members of the union executive. School District denied access under s. 22. Section 22 applies to the name of the third party.
Firefighters’ union requested copy of consultant’s report on labour relations within City fire and rescue service. City disclosed report with portions severed under ss. 17 and 22. Section 17 does not apply. Section 22 applies to some but not all information. City ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply
The applicant sought access to records of a police investigation into a probable homicide. Although the death occurred a number of years ago, the investigation is ongoing and s. 15 authorizes the APD to withhold the information it withheld. Section 16 also authorizes, and s. 22 requires, the APD to withhold information. The APD’s decision is upheld
Applicant, an adult adoptee, requested records showing her birth father’s name. Ministry refused access, on the basis that disclosure would unreasonably invade the privacy of third parties. In the circumstances of this case, s. 22 requires the Ministry to refuse disclosure of the third party’s name to the applicant.
Applicant requested records related to his interactions with a number of named doctors at the PHSA. The PHSA withheld some information under ss. 14 and 22. Applicant objected to decision to withhold information and also questioned the completeness of the PHSA’s response. The PHSA applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases s. 22. The PHSA is ordered to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22. The PHSA did not show that it complied with s. 6(1) in its response and is ordered to do so.
Applicant requested complaint record provided by third party to BC Hydro. Third party objected to its disclosure, although he later agreed to disclosure of most of record. Section 22 applies to some but not all of remaining withheld information
Applicant requested access to two reports of investigations into complaints the applicant made about her children’s teacher and about bullying of her children by other students. Section 22 requires the School District to refuse to disclose some, but not all, personal information in the reports. Section 21 is not applicable
The applicant requested her adoption file from the Ministry. The Ministry responded with records, severing information about third parties including the name of the applicant’s birth father under s. 22. The Ministry found to have applied s. 22 properly to the severed records.
Applicant requested records related to himself. PHSA disclosed large number of records and withheld others under ss. 12(3), 13(1), 14 and 22. Applicant disputed decision to withhold information and also complained about delay in PHSA’s response and records search. PHSA found to have applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases also ss. 13(1) and 22. PHSA found not to have complied with its duties under s. 6(1) and ordered to search again.
Applicant requested 13-year old complaint records. VPD found to have applied s. 19(1)(a) correctly and, with the exception of hospital employee names, s. 22.
The applicant requested access to records disclosing telephone numbers called by the Premier from his private lines during a specified period. Section 17(1) does not authorize the Ministry to refuse disclosure. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to refuse disclosure and severance under s. 4(2) is not required.
Applicant requested records related to his employment and promotion within UBC. UBC disclosed many records, withheld other records and information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22 and said other records were not relevant to the request. Applicant questioned search adequacy and objected to withholding of information. UBC applied s. 14 properly and, with some exceptions, also ss. 13(1) and 22. UBC searched adequately for responsive records, with one minor exception, for which it was ordered to search again. UBC ordered to disclose some information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22 and to provide a response on some records found to be relevant to request.
Section 21(1) does not require the Ministry to refuse access to rate information in three contracts for computer consulting services, proposals preceding the contracts or a score sheet comparing proposals. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to refuse to disclose some personal information in the proposals preceding the contracts.
Applicant requested review of School District’s decision under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain records. Third-party teacher requested review of School District’s decision to disclose investigator’s report and hearing records in severed form. School District found to have applied s. 8(2)(b) properly and to have correctly decided to sever and disclose report and hearing records.
Parents requested access to two investigation reports regarding a third-party teacher. Teacher requested a review of the School District’s decision to disclose reports in severed form. School District found to have correctly decided to disclose severed reports.
The City is required to withhold some third-party personal information in records of
complaints to the City about the applicants’ property. The City is required to withhold telephone
numbers, fax numbers, e-mail addresses, employment information and personal opinions or
observations not related to the applicants, but must disclose the rest to the applicants.
The Ministry disclosed information in audit reports relating to three physicians’
services that were billed to the Medical Services Plan, but refused to disclose some information
from those reports. The information is personal information the disclosure of which would be an
unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the audited physicians under s. 22(1). The
Ministry is not required to disclose information under s. 25(1).
The VCHA is not authorized or required to withhold the entirety of some pages of
records relating to incident reports by licensed residential community care facilities. The rest of
the requested records contain personal information of residents that cannot reasonably be severed
under s. 4(2). The VCHA may create a responsive non-identifying record under s. 6. The VCHA
is not required to disclose information under s. 25(1).
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry provided records to the
applicant but severed some information and withheld other records. Section 22 requires the
Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal information. Ministry found to have applied
s. 22 properly to the severed and withheld records and to have complied with s. 6(1) duty in
searching for records.
Applicant requested records related to her academic appeal. UBC provided records,
withholding other records and information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13(1), 14 and 22. UBC found to have
applied ss. 3(1)(b), and 14 properly and, with one exception, s. 22 as well. UBC ordered to
disclose some personal information related to applicant. Section 13(1) found not to apply in all
cases and UBC ordered to disclose draft letters.
The applicant sought from the public body information that might confirm the
applicant’s suspicions that the public body was systematically biased against him. The public
body withheld from applicant under s. 19 certain information, on the basis of a perceived threat
by the applicant to the safety of public body employees. Public body submitted evidence of
applicant’s past behaviour, but such evidence was insufficient to satisfy the test of reasonable
expectation of threat set out in s. 19(1). Applicant’s personal information withheld under s. 22 is
ordered disclosed. Other s. 22 severances upheld relating to applicant’s family members.
The applicant requested records about herself and her daughter. Under ss. 21 and 22,
the VSB withheld some information and records. The VSB is found to have applied s. 22
properly and is ordered to prepare a s. 22(5) summary.
Applicant, a teacher employed by the public body, requested copies of letters about
applicant written by parents. Public body correctly released the substance of third parties’ letters
to the applicant but properly refused under s. 22 to disclose their identifying information.
However, the public body failed to respond in the time permitted by the Act.
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry severed some information.
Applicant requested review of response, saying certain records missing. Ministry found to
have complied with s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and to have applied ss. 13(1) and 22
properly to some information.
The applicant complained to the College about the conduct of a College member.
The College disclosed 140 records from its complaint file, but refused to disclose, in their
entirety, 19 records. The College has failed to establish that s. 3(1)(b), s. 12(3)(b) or s. 15(2)(b)
apply. It is authorized to refuse disclosure of some information under ss. 13(1) and 14 and is
required to refuse disclosure by s. 22(3)(d) and (g). Section 22(1) does not require the College to
refuse the applicant access to her own personal information.
The Ministry is required by s. 22(1), in this case, to withhold names of private
security firm employees, since s. 22(3)(d) applies and s. 22(4)(i) does not. Not necessary to
decide whether s. 19(1)(a) applies.
Applicant requested records relating to a complaint she made to the College about
a dentist. The College properly withheld the personal information of third parties withheld under
s. 22. The College performed its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search for records
responsive to the request
The applicant in this case is the daughter of a woman whose attempt to revisit
a mediated settlement of her previous access request to SFU was dealt with in Order 01-16. In
Order 01-16, it was held that SFU need not process the woman’s new access request. The evidence
establishes that the daughter’s access request, made 10 days after Order 01-16 was issued, was
made on her mother’s behalf, as an attempt to circumvent Order 01-16. This is an abuse of process
and will not be allowed. The principle of res judicata also applies. SFU’s decision on the merits
of the daughter’s access request, as an arm’s-length applicant, is upheld.
Applicant requested records related to his employment with the AIBC and to records
related to two other employees. The AIBC withheld several records under ss. 14, 17 and 22. Section 14 found to apply to one record. Section 17 found not to apply. Section 22(4)(e) found to apply to the employees’ employment contracts, job descriptions, salary and benefit information, which is ordered disclosed. Sections 22(1) and 22(3)(d) and (g) found to apply to some withheld
information.
The applicant sought her deceased son’s medical records. The applicant is the nearest relative of the deceased son within the meaning of s. 3(c) of the FOI Regulation, but in the circumstances of this case is not acting on his behalf under that section. Assessing her request as a third party, the Commission has correctly refused access to the son’s personal information under s. 22(1)
The applicant requested access to records showing pass/failure and similar assessment rates of assessors in a program the Justice Institute offers. The Justice Institute is not required by s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose the assessors’ names in association with the pass/failure and other information. In the circumstances of this case, disclosure of their names (their personal information) is not disclosure of employment or occupational history. Nor would it disclose the identities of individuals who have supplied confidential personal evaluations or recommendations or any individual’s personal evaluations. Accordingly, no s. 22(3) presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy applies and there is otherwise no unreasonable invasion of personal privacy
Applicants made a request for letters of reference written by two third parties to a SFU search committee. SFU determined that parts of the letters could be released, including portions that would identify the third party writers. SFU gave the third parties notice of this decision. The third parties requested a review of that decision. The third parties’ personal information is subject to s. 22(3)(h) of the Act and SFU is required to withhold any information that would identify the authors of the letters.
Applicant requested copies of reports of outside professional activities of named faculty members. UBC provided severed copies, withholding under ss. 22(1) and 22(3)(d) information on their outside professional activities, use of UBC resources, dates and time spent. UBC found to have applied s. 22 properly to information on outside professional activities, dates and time spent. Section 22 found not to apply to information on any use of UBC resources.
The applicant, the College & Institute Retirees Association of British Columbia, sought access to a listing of the names and addresses of members or beneficiaries of the College Pension Plan who are currently in receipt of a pension or other benefits from the Plan. Because the personal information is to be used for solicitation purposes, the presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22(3)(j) applies. There being no relevant circumstances that favour disclosure, the Pension Corporation is required by s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose this third-party information.
Applicant requested, on behalf of client, names and addresses of 17 heirs at law to an estate. PGT found to have properly refused access under s. 22.
The applicant sought access to accounts of third party’s finances provided to the PGT respecting the deceased third party’s estate. The PGT denied access under s. 22(3)(f). The applicant is not entitled to exercise the third party’s rights under s. 3(b) or (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation. Disclosure is not necessary for the purpose of subjecting the PGT to public scrutiny. Because the third party’s death occurred not long before the applicant made her request, death does not diminish his privacy rights in this case. The PGT withheld the information properly under s. 22.
The applicants obtained an arbitrator’s award, under the Residential Tenancy Act, for rent and utilities owed by their former tenant. They asked the Ministry for her new address to collect the money owed under the award, but the Ministry refused under s. 22(1). None of the s. 22(3) presumed unreasonable invasions of personal privacy applies here. It is relevant that the address was supplied in confidence to the arbitrator, but it is also relevant to a fair determination of the applicants’ legal rights. The Ministry is not required to refuse access, there being no unreasonable invasion of privacy in this case.
The applicant sought access to the names of all individuals who had, in calendar 2000, made complaints to the Law Society about a lawyer’s conduct. The Law Society is not required to disclose this third-party personal information under s. 25(1) and is required to refuse disclosure under s. 22.
The applicant, who had complained to the Ministry, his employer, about his supervisor’s conduct, sought access to interview notes and other records related to the Ministry’s investigation of the complaint. The Ministry is required by s. 22 to withhold third-party personal information and the applicant’s personal information, which is inextricably intertwined with third-party personal information. The Ministry must, however, create a summary of the withheld information under s. 22(5).
The applicant requested all Ministry records relating to him from February 1993. The Ministry disclosed records to the applicant from that period and from later dates. The Ministry is required to withhold third-party personal information under s. 22(1) and is authorized to withhold information under s. 19(1)(a).
The applicant requested the .name of an individual who had approached police about distributing posters about the applicant in the community. Police refused access to third party’s name, first under s. 19(1)(a) and later also under s. 22. Section 19(1)(a) found not to apply, but police found to have withheld name correctly under s. 22.
The applicant requested copies of communications about herself, dating from 1989, that the School District had in its custody. The School District properly refused access on the basis that it had received the applicant’s personal information, and third-party personal information, in confidence and disclosure would unreasonably invade third-party personal privacy. The applicant has not shown that the information is relevant to fair determination of her rights or that other relevant circumstances favour disclosure. As it is not possible to sever or summarize the records without disclosing third-party personal information and unreasonably invading third-party personal privacy, the School District must withhold the entire communications.
Applicants sought copies of any letters written to the City by an individual about whom the applicants had made a noise complaint. The City refused access to any portion of the two responsive letters, citing ss. 22(1), 22(2)(f), 22(3)(b) and 22(3)(h). The City later reconsidered its decision at the applicants’ request, but continued to deny access, relying further on ss. 15(1)(a), (f) and 15(2)(b) of the Act. The City also later raised s. 19(1). The City is required to withhold the telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of the letters’ author, but must disclose the rest of the letters to the applicants. None of the exceptions relied on by the City authorizes or requires it to withhold the applicants’ own personal information
The applicant, an insured of ICBC, was involved in a car accident. ICBC admitted liability on his part and later settled a personal injury claim brought by the third party. After the settlement, the applicant sought access to claim-related records. ICBC disclosed numerous records, but withheld all or part of others under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1). ICBC not authorized to withhold information under ss. 14 or 17(1), but required to withhold certain third-party personal information under s. 22(1)
As agent for an employer, the CLRA made 30 access requests for initial wage rates, and other financial information, from wage loss claims made by employees of the employer to the WCB. The applications arose out of concerns by employers generally that the WCB had, over a number of years, over-estimated initial wage rates for casual workers. WCB refused to disclose such information, relying on ss. 17 and 22. During the inquiry, the WCB abandoned its reliance on s. 17 and relied only on s. 22. The WCB is not required to refuse disclosure of the wage-related information, as disclosure would not, for a number of reasons, unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the employer’s workers.
Applicant sought access to letter sent by a principal to a coach at her daughter’s school, regarding an incident involving her daughter. NVSD initially refused to disclose any part of the letter but later disclosed some. NVSD is required to withhold coach’s personal information consisting of evaluations of, or opinions about, her actions related to the incident. Other information cannot be withheld, either because it is not anyone’s personal information or because its disclosure would not unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the coach or other individuals.
The applicant had received, under the 1995 Adoption Act, a copy of his birth registration, which identified a particular woman as his birth mother. Applicant then requested access to records under the Act respecting his adoption, in order to establish his aboriginal ancestry. Ministry refused to disclose the name of the applicant’s putative birth father or personal information of other third parties. The applicant is not entitled to the personal information, as its disclosure would unreasonably invade the father’s personal privacy. Disclosure of identifying information of birth parents almost always will unreasonably invade their personal privacy under s. 22(1). Applicant also is not entitled to personal information of other third parties compiled in connection with his adoption, as disclosure would unreasonably invade their personal privacy.
Applicant sought his own claim file records from the WCB. WCB provided some records immediately and provided others later, in stages. WCB discovered and provided further records during the course of mediation by this Office. WCB found to ultimately have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty. Section 22(3)(a) found to apply to names and medical information of other WCB claimants in requested records.
Applicant, who is one subject of a letter written to UBC by another student, is entitled to access to more information than UBC disclosed. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld by UBC, including the applicant’s own personal information, but s. 22(1) requires UBC to withhold third parties’ personal information.
Applicant is entitled to portions of his own mental health records. Refusal to disclose certain portions was not justified under s. 19(2), but the vast majority of the balance was properly withheld under s. 19(1)(a). The Hospital was ordered to search again for computer records of the applicant’s treatment.
Applicant requested records related to calculation of benefits expected after WCB decision. WCB refused disclosure of most information, under ss. 13, 14, 17 and 22. Sections 14 and 17 found not to apply, as WCB has not established that solicitor client privilege applies nor that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm its financial interests. Section 13(1) found not to apply, except for one item, as records do not contain advice or recommendations. Because s. 22(4)(e) applied to information the WCB had withheld under s. 22, that information must be disclosed except for one item to which section 22(3)(g) applies. No waiver of privilege found.
An auto body shop applied for records in the custody of ICBC. The records consisted of internal e-mails and documents relating to the ongoing relationship between the shop and ICBC. ICBC had denied the shop accreditation, resulting in an appeal and revocation of the shop’s vendor number. ICBC did not succeed completely on its application of ss. 13 and 17 to a vast number of records. ICBC is required to demonstrate the information it withheld under s. 13 was created for the purpose of advising or recommending a specific course of action or range of actions or that it so advises or recommends. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interest from disclosure of specific information. ICBC succeeded on its application of s. 14 to records created for the dominant purpose of preparing for, advising on or conducting litigation. ICBC succeeded in its application of s. 15 to certain investigation records. The Material Damage Specialist Fraud Unit’s activities qualified as law enforcement, certain records were part of an actual investigation and ICBC demonstrated a reasonable expectation of harm. ICBC was able to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that disclosure of certain identities could threaten certain individuals’ safety or mental or physical health. Thus s. 19 was accepted for certain identifying information. ICBC properly applied s. 22 to certain third party personal information, but it was not properly applied to ICBC employee names and identities.
Applicant sought copies of interview notes taken by WCB’s accident investigator, and names of witnesses found in the investigator’s accident investigation report, regarding the workplace death of her husband. Investigation was conducted in 1998. After close of inquiry, WCB abandoned reliance on s. 15(1). WCB continued to withhold personal information of some witnesses under s. 22(1). Witnesses’ identities are known to each other and the witnesses are known to the applicant. WCB not required to withhold personal information under s. 22(1), including factual observations. Section 22(5) not applicable.
Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1), as information does not consist of advice or recommendations. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld under that section, but s. 22(1) applies, in part on the basis of s. 22(3)(a), to some of the same information. Section 22(3)(d) does not apply to information about ministry employees’ work-related actions, so s. 22(1) does not apply to that information. Ministry found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
Third parties wrote complaint letter to RCMP about views publicly expressed by RCMP officer about gay and lesbian issues. Ministry disclosed most of the letter to applicant. Ministry not authorized by s. 15(2)(b) or s. 19(1)(a), or required by s. 22(1), to withhold most of the remaining information in the letter. Small portions of remaining information, however, had to be withheld under s. 22(1).
Applicant sought records from ICBC related to personal injury claims he had made, some of which resulted in litigation. ICBC did not succeed in s. 14 or s. 17 claims for some of the records. ICBC is required in each case to prove application of litigation privilege to each responsive record, by showing that both elements of the common law test for that privilege have been met in relation to each record. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interests from disclosure of specific information, on a record by record basis. ICBC properly claimed s. 14 for contents of defence counsel’s file, which it continued to withhold. ICBC was required by s. 22 to withhold small amounts of third party personal information.
Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information relating to employment history or educational history as it relates to qualification of third parties for specific employment positions. Applicant also not entitled to personal information of third parties relating to their resignation from employment. Public body found to have fulfilled its duties under s. 6(1).
Applicant sought access to Ministry records about him. Applicant not entitled to see some of the third party personal information withheld from the record in issue. Third party personal information consisted of employment history of third party. Disclosure would be unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy.
Applicant sought records from ICBC related to personal injury claims he had made, some of which resulted in litigation. ICBC’s responses to applicant, in terms of its reasons for refusal to disclose and descriptions of records, were adequate for the purposes of ss. 6(1) and 8(1), though more detail was desirable. ICBC’s delay in responding was contrary to the Act in relation to one request. After close of inquiry, ICBC abandoned reliance on s. 14 and s. 17 for almost all records. ICBC would not have succeeded in s. 14 or s. 17 claims for released records. ICBC is required in each case, however, to prove application of litigation privilege to each responsive record, by showing that both elements of the common law test for that privilege have been met in relation to each record. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interests from disclosure of specific information, on a record by record basis. ICBC properly claimed s. 14 for contents of defence counsel’s file, which it continued to withhold. ICBC was required by s. 22 to withhold small amounts of third party personal information.
Applicant sought access to school counsellor’s notes of interviews with applicant’s children. School board required to refuse disclosure of student’s personal information under s. 22(1) and authorized to refuse to disclose same information on the basis of s. 19 (1).
Applicant sought records relating to him, and a legal opinion about him, in Ministry’s custody. Ministry authorized to withhold information under s. 14. Ministry not authorized to withhold information under s. 17(1), but Ministry required to withhold same information under s. 22.
Applicant sought access to records that contained personal information of a woman whom the applicant had pleaded guilty to having harassed criminally, under the Criminal Code, in 1995. Ministry’s refusal to disclose parts of the records authorized by ss.15(1)(g) and 19(1)(a). Ministry required to refuse to disclose personal information under s. 22(1). Not necessary to deal with Ministry’s reliance on s. 16.
Ministry refused to disclose e-mails sent by a third party to others, saying
their disclosure would unreasonably invade third parties’ privacy. E-mails contained
statements about the applicant and considerable amounts of fact. E-mails also contained
names and innocuous contact particulars of third parties. Ministry found not to be
required by s. 22(1) of the Act to refuse to disclose the disputed records. Records contain
no personal views or opinions of e-mails’ author (including about the applicant). Rest of
personal information in records found to be minimal. No unreasonable invasion of
anyone’s personal privacy from disclosure of personal information in the e-mails.
Applicant entitled to have access to all of the e-mails.
Applicant made a series of requests for access to his personal information.
UBC disclosed large amounts of information, but withheld some third party personal
information, information subject to solicitor client privilege, and advice or
recommendations. UBC was authorized to withhold privileged information and some
advice or recommendations. UBC was required to withhold third party personal
information that would identify individuals who gave confidential evaluations of the
applicant, but UBC ordered to comply with s. 22(5) duty to provide the applicant with
summaries of those evaluations. UBC was found to have fulfilled its duty to assist the
applicant. No evidence of bias on the part of UBC employees handling the applicant’s
access requests at the same time as appeal processes involving the applicant.
Adjudicator's decision to deny public body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be held.
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 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 access to records exchanged between Thompson Rivers University (TRU) and its legal counsel regarding an investigation into a workplace complaint a TRU faculty member made about the applicant. TRU disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 19 (disclosure harmful to individual health and safety), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 14 and required to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 22. As TRU’s withheld the same information under s. 19 and s. 22, the adjudicator did not consider s. 19.
An applicant requested 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.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for records related to the Ministry’s inspection of the applicant’s property. The Ministry responded to the applicant and withheld some records and information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information and records it withheld under s. 14 and required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 13(1).
An applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for access to all documents sent to or received by a specific TRU employee that mention the applicant. TRU disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 19(1)(a) (disclosure harmful to individual safety) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU is required to withhold almost all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that TRU was not required or permitted to withhold a small amount of information under any FIPPA exception to disclosure and required TRU to provide this information to the applicant. Section 19(1)(a) was not at issue with respect to any information that the adjudicator required TRU to provide to the applicant.
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 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 records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about his interactions with outpatient services. The Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information from them under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires Island Health to refuse to disclose the information.
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.
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.
An applicant requested that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records related to a motor vehicle accident. ICBC provided some information in response but withheld other information under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, ICBC’s application of ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (legal advice and litigation privilege), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator also confirmed ICBC’s application of settlement privilege which is a common law exception to disclosure. The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose some information to the applicant.
An applicant requested that the Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to her deceased mother’s (the deceased) medical records. Fraser Health refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make the request on behalf of the deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation (Regulation). Fraser Health also refused the applicant access to the records under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased. The adjudicator further found that disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the BC Securities Commission (BCSC) for records relating to the BCSC’s penalty collection rate, amendments to the Securities Act, and the BCSC’s collection action against the applicant. The BCSC withheld the information in dispute under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(1), 13(1), and 22(1) applied to some, but not all, of the information in dispute and ordered the BCSC to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under those sections. The adjudicator also ordered the BCSC to reconsider its decision to withhold certain information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient evidence that the BCSC considered all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to withhold that information.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to all medical records relating to his mother (the deceased). FHA refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased in accordance with s. 5 of FIPPA. FHA also refused him access to the records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased and disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
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).
An applicant requested access to a record relating to the investigation of a professional practice complaint he filed against a nurse. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Coastal Health) withheld the entire responsive record under ss. 19 (harm to individual or public safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found Coastal Health properly withheld the record.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to a residential property. The City of Burnaby (City) withheld information in the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. In some cases, the City applied one or more FIPPA exceptions to the same information. The City also argued some information was not responsive to the applicant’s access request and, therefore, could be withheld. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) review the City’s decision to refuse access. The adjudicator found the information withheld by the City as “non-responsive” was in fact responsive to the access request and ordered the City to disclose some of that information. The adjudicator also determined the City could not withhold any of the information at issue under s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences). However, the adjudicator decided the City properly applied s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) to some of the information withheld from the responsive records. The City was ordered to disclose the information that the adjudicator determined could not be withheld under a FIPPA exception to access.
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).
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 applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) for records relating to herself and a particular College complaint investigation file. The College provided partial access, withholding information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14. The adjudicator also determined that the College is required or authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information that the College withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
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.
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 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.
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).
The applicant requested access to all documents relating to him and his complaint against a named physician. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the College correctly applied 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).
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the application and appointment of a specific BC Supreme Court master. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under multiple exceptions to access. In some cases, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information in the responsive records under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. Given their finding on s. 22(1), the adjudicator did not need to consider whether s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) also applied to the same information. The Ministry was ordered to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under FIPPA. The Ministry also argued, and the adjudicator confirmed, that some of the responsive records fell outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(3)(c); therefore, the applicant had no right to access those records under FIPPA.
An applicant requested records related to a 2015 meeting attended by a representative of Destination British Columbia (DBC). DBC released the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 21(2) (information gathered for determining tax liability or collecting a tax), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 21(2). The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Finally, the adjudicator confirmed DBC’s decision to withhold a small amount of information under s. 13(1).
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to a record related to a personal injury claim they made regarding a motor vehicle accident. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provided the applicant with partial access to this record, but withheld information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found ICBC correctly applied ss. 14 and 22(1) to some of the information withheld in the responsive record. However, the adjudicator determined ICBC was not required or authorized under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22(1) to withhold other information and ordered ICBC to provide the applicant with access to that information.
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.
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.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Vancouver (City) for access to correspondence about the City’s decision to issue a formal public apology regarding the Komagata Maru incident. The City decided to release most of the information in the records, despite the objections of a third party (Third Party) whose personal information appears in the records. The Third Party requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold all of the records. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) does not apply to the information in dispute and ordered the City to disclose that information to the applicant.
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).
The applicant requested all of the records relating to her treatment at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital. The Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 22(1)
(unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information in
dispute but ordered Interior Health to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested records about himself from his employer, BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS). BCEHS provided 6,121 pages of responsive records, but withheld information in the records under ss. 3(3)(h) (scope of FIPPA), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). BCEHS also withheld a small amount of information under common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator confirmed BCEHS’s decisions with respect to ss. 3(3)(h), 13(1), 14, and (with one exception) s. 22. The adjudicator ordered BCEHS, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the records withheld under settlement privilege for the purpose of deciding this issue on the merits.
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry). The Ministry withheld some information under s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) and s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute under those exceptions. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the information in dispute considered under that exception.
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 requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). In response, the Ministry provided 8,936 pages of responsive records, withholding some information under a number of different exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under ss. 13(1), and 14 and some of the information under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) and 18(a). The Ministry was required to withhold some information in dispute under ss. 12(1) and 22(1). However, the Ministry was required to disclose some of the information it withheld under ss. 12(1), 16(1)(a)(iii), 18(a) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 16(1)(c) did not apply to the information considered under that section. The Ministry also withheld some information under common law settlement privilege, but did not provide the records in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to produce the records for the purpose of adjudicating settlement privilege. The applicant also complained that the Ministry did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for text messages and deleted emails.
A journalist requested records related to the BCCS’s investigation into the death of a third party. The BCCS initially withheld all of the records under s. 64(1) of the Coroners Act. The BCCS then disclosed the records but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of 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 ordered the BCCS to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under s. 22(1).
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.
The applicant requested access to her own personal information from the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC) relating to a complaint that she had made against a member of the CPABC. The CPABC
disclosed some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 15 (harm to law enforcement) and
22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (FIPPA). The CPABC also withheld all of the information under s. 69 of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act (CPAA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(7) of
FIPPA overrides s. 69 of the CPAA. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(3), 13(1) and 15 of FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all
of the information. The adjudicator ordered the CPABC to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.
An applicant requested 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.
An applicant asked the Office of the Premier and the BC Public Service
Agency (public bodies) for records related to a leave of absence without pay taken by a former named employee. The public bodies withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The investigator found that s. 22(1) applied to all of the information in dispute and that the public bodies were required to withhold it.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to an agreement between the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) and two named individuals, along with other related documents. The Ministry withheld the entire agreement on the basis it was
protected by settlement privilege, but provided the applicant with partial access to other records by withholding information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the agreement on the basis of settlement privilege, but that it was required to withhold the agreement under s. 22(1). The adjudicator also found the Ministry was required to withhold most of the remaining information at issue under s. 22(1). The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
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 applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
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 applicant requested copies of records relating to a call to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) about him, including an audio recording of the call. The VPD disclosed records, including a transcript of the audio recording, but withheld some information under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that the VPD had correctly applied s. 22 and ordered it to withhold the information.
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. 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(1).
A journalist asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for records related to a news release on fraud cases that ICBC had investigated. ICBC disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). ICBC later argued that many of the records were court records and thus excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(a) (now s. 3(3)(a)). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information in dispute (drivers’ names and court and police file numbers) and ordered ICBC to refuse the journalist access to this information. The adjudicator also found that the issue of whether s. 3(1)(a) applies to some of the records was moot, as ICBC had already disclosed them in severed form.
The applicant 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 made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a cabinet briefing note and candidate profile and declaration for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive record, 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 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 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 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 requested information about short-term rental accommodation
and Airbnb in the City of Vancouver. The City refused access to the requested
information under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 19(1) (harm to individual safety), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to a small amount of the
information under ss. 15(1)(f), 19(1)(a) and 21(1). However, none of the exceptions applied to the rest of the disputed information and the City was ordered to disclose it to the applicant.
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 records showing the days worked and days absent for a particular employee of the Office of the Premier during two stipulated periods. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) refused to disclose information in the responsive records under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information at issue and ordered the Ministry to withhold the information.
An applicant requested from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) records containing their personal information. VicPD 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 VicPD had correctly applied the exceptions to disclosure and confirmed its decision to withhold the information at issue.
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.
The applicant requested the full names of the members of a community panel the City of Vancouver (City) convened to make a recommendation about a new
arterial road. The City decided to release all the names of the panelists, despite the objections of one panelist (the Panelist). The Panelist requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold their name. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires the City to withhold the Panelist’s name.
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).
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo), the Evergreen Line and the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) provided partial access to the records by withholding information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1)(a) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (disclosure harmful to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 12(1), 14 and 22(1), but was not authorized or required to withhold the remaining information in dispute.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of British Columbia (UBC) for access to an investigation report. The report concerns allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment that the applicant made against a former UBC employee. UBC decided to disclose some of the information in the report. The former UBC employee argued that the disputed information should be withheld under s. 22(1) of FIPPA because its disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy. The adjudicator found the disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy and confirmed UBC’s decision that it is not required under s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose the disputed information to the applicant.
The public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file
under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to
public body’s financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply because the records had been in existence for 10 or more years, so s. 13(3) was engaged. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision, in part, to refuse access under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1) and ordered the public body to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 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 applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) file on its investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. The VPD disclosed some of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 15 (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to the information in dispute and ordered the VPD to refuse the applicant access to it. It was not necessary to consider s. 15.
An applicant requested access to all records about himself held by BC Transit. BC Transit withheld some information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). This order addresses BC Transit’s decision to withhold the name of one of its employees under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the name of the employee in the circumstances.
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.
An applicant requested access to correspondence between a named employee of the City of Vancouver (City) and three other individuals. The City disclosed 31 pages of emails, withholding some information under ss. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the City to disclose this information. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered the City to disclose the information to which she found s. 22(1) does not apply. The applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) requires disclosure of the withheld information but the adjudicator found that it does not.
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 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.
An applicant requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (College). The College withheld information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the College applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the College was required to withhold some information under ss. 13 and 14, but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13, 14 and 22 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(5) was not applicable since a third party did not confidentially supply any information about the applicant. However, the adjudicator ordered the College to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient explanation and evidence that the College exercised its discretion on proper grounds and considered all relevant factors.
A professor made two requests for records related to an investigation and to certain communications about him. The University of Victoria gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University of Victoria’s decision to refuse the applicant access under ss. 14 and 22.
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.
The applicant corporation made a request to the City of Parksville (City)
for records relating to the City's decision to undertake litigation against the applicant.
The City refused to disclose portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal local
body confidences under s.12(3)(b), advice or recommendations under s. 13(1), solicitor
client privileged information under s. 14 or would unreasonably invade third party privacy
under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the City could withhold some but not all of the
information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1) and 14 of FIPPA. As a result of these findings, it
was not necessary for the adjudicator to consider whether s. 22 applied.
The applicant requested the names of all donors who donated over $3,000
to the University of Victoria between October 1, 2015 and September 15, 2016, along
with the amount they donated. The University provided some information to the
applicant, but withheld other information pursuant to ss. 17(1) (harm to financial
interests), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party), and s. 22 (unreasonable
invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the University was
authorized under s. 17 of FIPPA to withhold some of the information and required by
s. 22 to refuse to disclose other information. A small amount of information was ordered
to be disclosed to the applicant. Given the findings, it was not necessary to also consider
s. 21.
The applicant made a request to the District of Sechelt for all correspondence, reports or notes relating to incidents that occurred on his property and that were the subject of complaints by third parties. The District of Sechelt refused to disclose portions of the records under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute and that ss. 15(1)(c) and (d) did not apply.
The applicant requested records that relate to the City of Vancouver’s decision to discipline the applicant at work. The City of Vancouver refused access to portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal advice or recommendations under s. 13 and that it would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the City is authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under s.13. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 applies to some of the information but that that the City is required to disclose the remaining information.
An applicant requested access to records about the preparation of affidavits for a court action. The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA, to either confirm or deny the existence of the records on the grounds that disclosure of their existence would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed that the LSBC was authorized to rely on s. 8(2)(b).
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.
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
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.
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, 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.
A journalist requested copies of Treasury Board submissions related to funding BC Place renovations. The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) applied to most of the information in dispute and that s. 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) applied to the rest. The adjudicator ordered the public bodies to withhold the information under these sections.
The applicant asked Langara College for grades assigned to him by classmates in a business course, as well as those that his classmates assigned to each other. The College refused access on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the applicant’s classmates under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The Adjudicator agreed, but found that the College was required to give the applicant a summary of his grades in a manner that would not identify his classmates.
The applicant requested year-end pay statements of a former and current CAO of the City of Rossland. The City withheld the pay statements on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information in the pay statements because it was not an unreasonable invasion of privacy, including information about remuneration under s. 22(4)(e) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City must continue to withhold some information that under s. 22(3) is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy if disclosed.
The applicant requested the BC Coroners Service file on its investigation
into the death of a named individual. The Coroners Service disclosed some records but denied access to others under ss. 64(1)(a) and 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act and s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 64(1)(a) or 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act apply to most of the records. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 of FIPPA applies to a number
of records, with the exception of three records that were provided to the Coroners Service by the applicant. The adjudicator ordered the Coroners Service to disclose those three records to the applicant.
The applicant requested records about a named employee of the BC public service. The request was responded to by the BC Public Service Agency, part of the Ministry of Finance, which withheld the responsive records from the employee’s personnel file on the basis disclosure was an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of the information about the named employee’s position, functions and remuneration because it would not be an unreasonable invasion of the employee’s privacy under s. 22(4)(e) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry must continue to withhold the remaining information because there is a presumption that disclosure of the information would be an unreasonable invasion of the named employee’s privacy under s. 22(3) and the presumption was not rebutted by any factors, including those in s. 22(2) of FIPPA.
The applicant requested information about herself held by BC Ferries, particularly information related to an incident that occurred during her work as an equipment operator. BC Ferries withheld information claiming ss. 13, 15, 19 and 22 of FIPPA exemptions. With the exception of its reliance on s. 13 and a few pages that must be disclosed, BC Ferries properly applied disclosure exemptions to the record.
The applicant requested copies of all resignation letters received by PavCo during the September 2011 to September 2012 operating year. PavCo claimed that it was required under s. 22(1) of FIPPA to refuse disclosure of the letters because they contain personal information that relates to employment, occupational or educational history and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy. PavCo correctly denied the applicant access to the personal information and it must be severed from the remaining portions of the record.
A journalist requested records relating to medications for the treatment of Adult Macular Degeneration. The Ministries withheld portions of the requested information under ss. 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 of FIPPA. The Assistant Commissioner ordered the public bodies to disclose parts of the withheld information, authorized the public bodies to withhold parts of the withheld information under s. 13, 14, 16, and 17 of FIPPA, and required the public bodies to refuse to disclose parts of the withheld information under ss. 21 and 22 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested records related to his involvement as a suspect in a police investigation. The adjudicator found the VPD was required to withhold most of the information on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The VPD was not required to withhold information relating to the police officers’ actions.
The applicant requested video recordings relating to the time that she was detained at the Vancouver City Jail. On judicial review of a previous order in which some recordings were ordered released with some redactions, the Supreme Court of British Columbia held that the facial image of a Correctional Officer in the recording was third party personal information and remitted back to the Commissioner the question of whether the release of that information would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s privacy. The applicant made no submissions on the remittal. The applicant has not met the burden of showing that the release of the information would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s privacy.
Adjudicator denied the Abbotsford Police Department's request that this matter not proceed to inquiry.
Applicants made access requests to a school district for records relating to complaints they had made about their respective children’s teacher. On reconsideration of Order 04-04 and Order 04-05, the school district’s investigations into the allegations against the teacher were not investigations into a possible violation of law under s. 22(3)(b). The applicants were not entitled to information the disclosure of which would reveal the substance of in camera deliberations by the school district under s. 12(3)(b). They were also not entitled to personal information about the teacher, the disclosure of which would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy under s. 22 and which could not reasonably be severed under s. 4(2). The applicants were otherwise entitled to: non-personal information; their own complaint information against the teacher; and the applicants’ or their children’s personal information, including the statements or opinions of the teacher or others about the applicants and their children and their interactions with the teacher.
Applicant asked for records of investigation into his complaints against his managers and supervisors. Ministry severed report and withheld interview notes. Ministry argued summary under s. 22(5) not possible. Ministry found in some cases to have applied s. 22 correctly. Ministry ordered to disclose other information withheld under s. 22 and to prepare summary of remaining personal information of applicant in report and in interview notes.
The applicant sought access to various Law Society records related to complaints he
had made about various lawyers. Order 02-01 and Order No. 260-1998 addressed many of the
records in dispute here and issue estoppel is found to apply to information dealt with in those
decisions. In the case of some but not all of the information in other records, the Law Society is
authorized to refuse to disclose information subject to s. 14 and is required to refuse to disclose
third-party personal information protected by s. 22.
Applicant made a series of requests for access to his personal information.
UBC disclosed large amounts of information, but withheld some third party personal
information, information subject to solicitor client privilege, and advice or
recommendations. UBC was authorized to withhold privileged information and some
advice or recommendations. UBC was required to withhold third party personal
information that would identify individuals who gave confidential evaluations of the
applicant, but UBC ordered to comply with s. 22(5) duty to provide the applicant with
summaries of those evaluations. UBC was found to have fulfilled its duty to assist the
applicant. No evidence of bias on the part of UBC employees handling the applicant’s
access requests at the same time as appeal processes involving the applicant.
An applicant requested information about himself from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under various sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(3)(a) of FIPPA (records to which FIPPA does not apply) did not apply. The adjudicator found that ss. 77(1) (identity of a person who made a child protection report) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during an assessment or investigation) of the CFCSA applied to most, but not all, of the information the Ministry withheld under those sections. The adjudicator found that the Ministry properly applied s. 14 of FIPPA (solicitor-client privilege), and that the Ministry was required to withhold most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
An applicant requested access to records about employee exit interviews conducted by the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (Commission). The Commission disclosed some responsive records but withheld information from them and other records in their entirety pursuant to s. 22(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the Commission was required to withhold almost all the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Commission to disclose the information it was not required to withhold to the applicant.
An applicant requested access, 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.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for records related to the Ministry’s inspection of the applicant’s property. The Ministry responded to the applicant and withheld some records and information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information and records it withheld under s. 14 and required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 13(1).
An applicant requested records from Thompson Rivers University (TRU) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). TRU disclosed the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that TRU was authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under s. 14 and most of the information it withheld under s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that TRU was required to withhold most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered TRU to disclose to the applicant the information it was not authorized or required to withhold.
An applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for access to all documents sent to or received by a specific TRU employee that mention the applicant. TRU disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 19(1)(a) (disclosure harmful to individual safety) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU is required to withhold almost all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that TRU was not required or permitted to withhold a small amount of information under any FIPPA exception to disclosure and required TRU to provide this information to the applicant. Section 19(1)(a) was not at issue with respect to any information that the adjudicator required TRU to provide to the applicant.
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 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 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 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 records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
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.
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 applicant requested all minutes of City Council and committee meetings, emails, and social media messages that included any variation of her name from the City of Pitt Meadows (the City). The City disclosed the records but withheld some information under ss. (13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 14 in full, and its decision under ss. 22(1) in part, and ordered the City to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1) to the applicant.
An applicant requested that the Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to her deceased mother’s (the deceased) medical records. Fraser Health refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make the request on behalf of the deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation (Regulation). Fraser Health also refused the applicant access to the records under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased. The adjudicator further found that disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
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).
An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related
to an external investigation of the University’s treatment of the applicant. The University
disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator
determined that the University was authorized to withhold all the information withheld
under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some information withheld under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered the University to disclose that information.
An applicant requested access to records related to the Metro Vancouver Transit Police’s (MVTP’s) investigation into a dispute in which he was involved. The MVTP disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information and records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the MVTP was required to withhold most of the information under s. 22(1) and ordered the MVTP to disclose the remainder of the information.
The applicant asked the Board of Education of School District No. 43 (School District) to provide him with access to information about his child’s educational supports and assistance. The School District disclosed responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the School District was authorized to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) and was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the School District to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to 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).
An applicant requested records created pursuant to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which requires crown counsel to report adverse judicial comments on a peace officer’s testimony. The Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) withheld information in two of the responsive records under s. 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry also decided that the name of the involved police officer could be disclosed, and notified the police officer’s employer, who requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The applicant and another party were also invited to participate in the inquiry.
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.
An applicant requested access to a record relating to the investigation of a professional practice complaint he filed against a nurse. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Coastal Health) withheld the entire responsive record under ss. 19 (harm to individual or public safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found Coastal Health properly withheld the record.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
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.
An applicant requested access to all records held by the Ministry naming two individuals and created within a specific date range. The Ministry refused access to some information in the responsive records under several exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA but only s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) was in issue during the inquiry. The adjudicator confirmed that the Ministry correctly applied s. 22 to most of the information in dispute but ordered the Ministry to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
An applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) for records relating to herself and a particular College complaint investigation file. The College provided partial access, withholding information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14. The adjudicator also determined that the College is required or authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information that the College withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to certain records. FHA disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information in them. The applicant requested a review of this decision. FHA also notified a third party that it planned to disclose some records (Audit Reports) to the applicant. The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision. The adjudicator determined that FHA was not required to refuse to disclose the Audit Reports under s. 21(1) of FIPPA, but that it was required to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
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 applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the implementation of medical assistance in dying practices and procedures by the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). FHA disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information under several exceptions in Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) applied to some, but not all, of the information FHA withheld. The adjudicator ordered FHA to disclose the information which was not covered by ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), or 22(1) of FIPPA.
The applicant made a request to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records about her employment with PHSA. PHSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that PHSA correctly applied ss. 14 and 22(1). As a result, it was unnecessary to consider s. 13.
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 access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the application and appointment of a specific BC Supreme Court master. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under multiple exceptions to access. In some cases, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information in the responsive records under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. Given their finding on s. 22(1), the adjudicator did not need to consider whether s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) also applied to the same information. The Ministry was ordered to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under FIPPA. The Ministry also argued, and the adjudicator confirmed, that some of the responsive records fell outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(3)(c); therefore, the applicant had no right to access those records under FIPPA.
An applicant made a request 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).
The applicant requested information from the City of Vancouver related to the rezoning of the property surrounding Crofton Manor, a senior’s care facility in the City. The City disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under s. 21 in part, and its decision under s. 22 in full, and ordered the City to disclose some information incorrectly withheld under s. 21 to the applicant.
An applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report prepared for the City of Revelstoke (City). The investigation report was partially about the applicant. The City provided the applicant with a copy of the report, but withheld some information in it under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 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 City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
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 requested records relating to two courses offered at Simon Fraser University (SFU). SFU responded providing access to records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that SFU had correctly applied s. 22(1) to the personal information at issue, but that it had incorrectly applied it to information that was not personal information. The adjudicator ordered SFU to disclose the information that was not personal information.
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.
A journalist requested access to CCTV recordings from two cameras at a BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo) facility. The recording included the last 23 seconds of the life of a film production motorcycle stunt driver. PavCo withheld the recordings under s. 22(1) on the grounds that disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. The adjudicator upheld the decision of PavCo to deny access to the records.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Vancouver (City) for access to correspondence about the City’s decision to issue a formal public apology regarding the Komagata Maru incident. The City decided to release most of the information in the records, despite the objections of a third party (Third Party) whose personal information appears in the records. The Third Party requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold all of the records. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) does not apply to the information in dispute and ordered the City to disclose that information to the applicant.
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).
The applicant requested all of the records relating to her treatment at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital. The Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 22(1)
(unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information in
dispute but ordered Interior Health to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry). The Ministry withheld some information under s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) and s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute under those exceptions. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the information in dispute considered under that exception.
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 applicants made separate requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) for access to records containing information about them relating to their operation of a foster home. The Ministry withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under ss. 15(1)(d) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The Ministry also decided that some records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(c). The adjudicator determined that some of the disputed records are beyond the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c). Regarding the other records, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold most, but not all, of the disputed information under s. 22(1) and that, given this finding, it is not necessary to also consider s. 15(1)(d).
A journalist requested records related to the BCCS’s investigation into the death of a third party. The BCCS initially withheld all of the records under s. 64(1) of the Coroners Act. The BCCS then disclosed the records but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of 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 ordered the BCCS to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under s. 22(1).
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.
An applicant asked the Office of the Premier and the BC Public Service
Agency (public bodies) for records related to a leave of absence without pay taken by a former named employee. The public bodies withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The investigator found that s. 22(1) applied to all of the information in dispute and that the public bodies were required to withhold it.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to an agreement between the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) and two named individuals, along with other related documents. The Ministry withheld the entire agreement on the basis it was
protected by settlement privilege, but provided the applicant with partial access to other records by withholding information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the agreement on the basis of settlement privilege, but that it was required to withhold the agreement under s. 22(1). The adjudicator also found the Ministry was required to withhold most of the remaining information at issue under s. 22(1). The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
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).
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.
A journalist asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for records related to a news release on fraud cases that ICBC had investigated. ICBC disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). ICBC later argued that many of the records were court records and thus excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(a) (now s. 3(3)(a)). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information in dispute (drivers’ names and court and police file numbers) and ordered ICBC to refuse the journalist access to this information. The adjudicator also found that the issue of whether s. 3(1)(a) applies to some of the records was moot, as ICBC had already disclosed them in severed form.
The applicant 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 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 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 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 requested information about short-term rental accommodation
and Airbnb in the City of Vancouver. The City refused access to the requested
information under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 19(1) (harm to individual safety), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to a small amount of the
information under ss. 15(1)(f), 19(1)(a) and 21(1). However, none of the exceptions applied to the rest of the disputed information and the City was ordered to disclose it to the applicant.
An applicant requested records showing the days worked and days absent for a particular employee of the Office of the Premier during two stipulated periods. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) refused to disclose information in the responsive records under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information at issue and ordered the Ministry to withhold the information.
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.
An applicant requested the names and hometowns of the winners of a Lotto
6/49 jackpot. The BC Lottery Corporation (BCLC) refused to disclose the responsive
records under s. 19(1) (disclosure harmful to individual 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 adjudicator found that ss 19(1)
and 22(1) applied to the information at issue and ordered BCLC to withhold 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.
An applicant requested records from the City of Vancouver (City) under the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) related to three “rezoning
enquiries” covering the period from April 2016 to January 2019. The City disclosed records, severing information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 15(1)(l)
(harm to security of property or system), 17(1) (harm to economic interests of public
body) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The applicant disputed
that severing and also complained that the City interpreted his request too narrowly and
did not conduct an adequate search for the responsive records. The adjudicator found
that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some information. The adjudicator also found that
s. 13(1) did not apply to other information and ordered the City to disclose it. It was not
necessary to consider s. 13(1) for some information or to consider ss. 17(1) and 15(1)(l) at all. Finally, the adjudicator found that the City complied with its duty under s. 6(1) to
interpret the request and conduct an adequate search.
The applicant requested a variety of information from Community Living
British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld
other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA).
This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to
ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client
privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no
disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken
together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or
required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.
The applicant made requests under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Citizens’
Services (Ministries) for access to records containing any and all allegations made by a
named individual against the applicant, either in writing or in an audio recording. The
Ministries released the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some records
and information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal
privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested a review of the Ministries’ decisions. The
adjudicator concluded that the Ministries were required to refuse to disclose some of the
disputed information under s. 22(1), including most of two audio recordings, but were
required to disclose the balance of the disputed information to the applicant.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the 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.
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).
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 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.
The applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investigation that led to the well known 2012 Ministry employee firings. The Ministry provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This order considers ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 applied, and that s. 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that she found s. 22 did not apply to.
The 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 requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
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.
A professor made two requests for records related to an investigation and to certain communications about him. The University of Victoria gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University of Victoria’s decision to refuse the applicant access under ss. 14 and 22.
The applicant requested documents from BC Hydro relating to contractors who bid for a construction project. BC Hydro withheld some information from two pages under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed BC Hydro’s decision.
A professor requested information about two University investigations into his work conduct. The University gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s decision regarding s. 14. The s. 13(1) and s. 22(1) decisions were confirmed in part. The University was ordered to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
An applicant requested 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.
A journalist requested various reports which allegedly relate to a named third party. The British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to neither confirm nor deny that the requested records exist. The adjudicator found that BCLC was authorized under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny that the requested records exist.
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.
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 requested the names of all donors who donated over $3,000
to the University of Victoria between October 1, 2015 and September 15, 2016, along
with the amount they donated. The University provided some information to the
applicant, but withheld other information pursuant to ss. 17(1) (harm to financial
interests), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party), and s. 22 (unreasonable
invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the University was
authorized under s. 17 of FIPPA to withhold some of the information and required by
s. 22 to refuse to disclose other information. A small amount of information was ordered
to be disclosed to the applicant. Given the findings, it was not necessary to also consider
s. 21.
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 BC Transit driver requested the dates of hire of his fellow drivers to pursue a dispute with his union over seniority lists. BC Transit refused access to the information under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the dates of hire and ordered BC Transit to refuse access to them.
An applicant requested access to records about the preparation of affidavits for a court action. The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA, to either confirm or deny the existence of the records on the grounds that disclosure of their existence would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed that the LSBC was authorized to rely on s. 8(2)(b).
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 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.
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.
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.
The applicant asked for any records with his name on them. The City disclosed some records, withholding information under ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence) and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The Adjudicator found that all three exceptions applied.
The applicant requested the BC Coroners Service file on its investigation
into the death of a named individual. The Coroners Service disclosed some records but denied access to others under ss. 64(1)(a) and 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act and s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 64(1)(a) or 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act apply to most of the records. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 of FIPPA applies to a number
of records, with the exception of three records that were provided to the Coroners Service by the applicant. The adjudicator ordered the Coroners Service to disclose those three records to the applicant.
The applicant requested information regarding the Civil Forfeiture Office. The Ministry withheld the names of the Civil Forfeiture Office’s employees because it believed that disclosure would endanger their lives or physical safety (s. 15(1)(f)) and disclosure could reasonably be expected to threaten their safety or mental or physical health (s.19(1)(a)). The adjudicator found that neither s. 15(1)(f) nor s. 19(1)(a) authorized refusing to disclose the names of the employees. The Ministry also withheld the résumé of the Civil Forfeiture Office’s former director because it believed that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy (s. 22). The adjudicator found that the former director’s résumé must be withheld under s. 22.
The applicant made two separate requests for records. The first request was for a copy of a report of an organizational review of the College. The adjudicator found that the College was not justified in withholding information from the report under ss. 12(3)(b) and 13(1) of FIPPA. However, with two small exceptions, the adjudicator found that disclosure of the personal information contained in the report would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA and it may not be disclosed. The applicant’s second request was for records related to the issue of assessing substantially equivalent qualifications of College registrants, and the adjudicator found that the refusal to disclose them was authorized under s. 13(1) of FIPPA.
A criminology professor requested decisions of the College on physicians disciplined for sexually inappropriate behaviour. The College disclosed a copy of an Agreement in which a physician admitted he had inappropriately hugged and kissed a patient and agreed to the College imposing discipline on him. The College previously made a separate public disclosure of the identity of the physician, a description of the charge against him, and the details of the discipline it imposed. The College withheld, under s. 22(1) of FIPPA, all information identifying the complainant and the physician, as well as the medical, educational and employment history of the physician. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the medical information of the complainant and the medical, educational and employment history of the physician, but not to the identity of the physician, the details of the charge or the terms of the discipline it imposed. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose this information in the Agreement.
A journalist requested correspondence between BCLC and a director of a gaming company, who was also a former Chair of the Board of Directors of BCLC. BCLC identified email correspondence between the CEO of BCLC, as he then was, and the director to be responsive to the request and decided to disclose the records to the journalist. BCLC provided notice of the request to the director. The director requested a review on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA and would harm the interests of one of his businesses under s. 21. Section 22 applies only to the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties. The journalist argues that s. 25 of FIPPA requires disclosure of the correspondence as being in the public interest. Section 25 does not apply to any of the information. Section 21 does not apply to any of the information. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to withhold the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties and disclose the remainder of the information.
An applicant requested details of a settlement that a former employee received from the City. The City withheld the settlement agreement in its entirety under s. 22, on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the former employee’s personal privacy. The applicant subsequently narrowed the request to the amount of money the City paid the former employee, as provided in the settlement agreement. Section 22 does not apply to the information withheld, because disclosure is desirable for public scrutiny. The City is ordered to disclose the financial amount paid to the former employee.
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested the records of the NWPB investigation into the incident. NWPB disclosed much of the information. Section 22(1) found not to apply to most of the information withheld under that exception and NWPB ordered to disclose it, subject to reconsideration of s. 15(1)g). Third parties found not to be “confidential sources of law enforcement information” and s. 15(1)(d) therefore does not apply. Some information relates to or was used in the “exercise of prosecutorial discretion”. However New Westminster Police Board found not to have exercised discretion properly in applying s.15(1)(g) and is ordered to reconsider its decision.
Three applicants requested access to records related to termination of employees, severance paid and discipline imposed following an investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers into ICBC’s Material Damage Training and Research Facility. An affected third party requested a review of ICBC’s decision to disclose severed records related to him. ICBC’s proposed application of s. 22 found to be correct except for amount of third party’s severance which is ordered disclosed for public scrutiny reasons
The applicant requested records compiled under s. 86 of the Gaming Control Act reporting suspected or actual illegal activities in registered gaming establishments and casinos. This Order follows Order F08-03 wherein the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the records under s. 15 or required to withhold them under s. 21 but was required withhold some personal information under s. 22. Following a request by the third parties, Order F08-07 was issued granting all parties the opportunity to make further argument concerning whether the names of casino employees which appear in the s. 86 reports should be withheld under s. 22. The third parties argued that the names of their employees, including the writers of the s. 86 reports, should not be disclosed. The Ministry must disclose the names of the s. 86 report writers and other employees acting in the course of their employment responsibilities. However, the Ministry is required to withhold the names of employees who are identified in the reports as being threatened or assaulted, who were subject to investigation or who were witnesses to an incident.
The applicant requested certain records in the inquest files of two dozen individuals. The Ministry disclosed the Verdict at Coroner‘s Inquest in each case, together with correspondence on the juries‘ recommendations. It withheld a number of records on the basis that they were excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act or, alternatively, under s. 3(1)(b) of FIPPA. It withheld the rest of the records under ss. 15, 16(1)(b) and 22(1). Section 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act does not apply as it was not in effect at the time of the requests or Ministry‘s decision on access. Section 3(1)(b) applies to records related to coroners‘ inquest-related functions but not to other records, including those reflecting administrative activities. Section 3(1)(c) applies to a handful of records, although Ministry did not claim it. Ministry ordered to reconsider its decision to apply s. 16(1)(b) on the grounds that it failed to exercise discretion. It was not necessary to consider s. 15. Section 22(1) found to apply to many but not all other records. Ministry ordered to disclose certain records to which ss. 3(1)(b) and 22(1) do not apply.
The VCHA investigated abuse allegations concerning an elderly woman. Four family members related to the elderly woman requested records from the VCHA about themselves because of concerns they were the subject of these allegations. In considering all of the relevant circumstances, the VCHA is required to withhold the information in dispute under s. 22 of FIPPA. Though the Adult Guardianship Act did not trump FIPPA, VCHA’s obligations under that Act were relevant to determining that the disputed records were provided in confidence.
The applicant requested access to electronic copies of 70 fields of Foundation Skills Assessment student summary data for a certain period, in order to carry out statistical research on the data. The Ministry refused access under s. 22. In his inquiry submission, the applicant offered to reduce the scope of his request to a few fields. The Ministry provided three options for disclosure of the narrower set of data, with Personal Education Numbers (PENs) encrypted, which in its view would not unreasonably invade individual student privacy. Ministry is ordered to disclose data in accordance with the option involving disclosure of the narrowed data with PENs encrypted and populations or cells of fewer than five students suppressed.
The applicant requested access to records related to the VPD's homicide investigation of the 1992 death of a named individual. The VPD initially refused access to all of the records under s. 22(3)(b) of FIPPA. It later added other exceptions and disclosed some records. The VPD is required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested access to records related to the 1989 death of a named individual. The VPD initially withheld all records under s. 22(3)(b). It later added other exceptions and disclosed a few pages. The VPD are required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested access to records related to the “police involved shooting” in 2004 of a named individual. The VPD initially refused access to all of the records under s. 22(3)(b). It later added other exceptions and argued that additional records were excluded under s. 66.1 of the Police Act. It also released some records. The VPD are required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1). Certain other pages are excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 66.1 of the Police Act.
The applicant requested salary and severance information concerning SkyTrain employees for the years 2002 to 2005. Section 22(4)(e) does not apply to the requested information in this case. However, TransLink, as the public body responsible for the information, is required to disclose it following consideration of all relevant factors under s. 22, including the need for public scrutiny.
The applicant requested records from the College relating to the investigation of a complaint the applicant made against a psychologist. The College is required to refuse disclosure of personal information because it would be an unreasonable invasion of the psychologist’s personal privacy. The personal information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law and also related to the occupational history of the psychologist. The applicant did not rebut the presumptions of unreasonable invasion of personal privacy thus raised.
Senior Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56 regarding s. 22.
Applicant requested records confirming certain types of personal information regarding six individuals in connection with a neighbouring property. ICBC found to have properly refused access to this information under s. 22.
The applicant, a former employee of BC Hydro, requested records relating to himself, a third party and a private company the two had previously shared an interest in. BC Hydro released some records but withheld some in whole or part. BC Hydro was required to disclose some of the records. BC Hydro was also authorized to withhold some of the records under ss. 13(1) and 14 and was required to withhold others under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.
The applicant requested access to a citation which the College had issued against the third party psychologist but later withdrew. The College decided to disclose the citation in severed form. The third party requested a review of this decision, saying the entire record should be withheld. The information in dispute falls under s. 22(3)(d). While ss. 22(2)(e) and (g) apply to some degree, the presumption in s. 22(3)(d) is overcome by the factors in ss. 22(2)(a) and (c) which favour disclosure. The College is required to give access to the record as severed.
The applicant requested a report of an investigation into an incident involving trees which were mistakenly cut down by UBC employees. UBC released the report, but withheld the names and positions of the employees who were involved in the incident and those who were interviewed in the investigation. UBC is required by s. 22 of FIPPA to withhold the names of the employees
The applicant requested records relating to a sale of real property conducted by the Public Guardian and Trustee over 30 years ago on behalf of a client who is now deceased. Most of the records in dispute do not contain personal information. In particular, information about the value of a piece of real property is not personal information. The relatively small amount of personal information that is contained in the records relates to persons who are members of the applicant’s family and are now deceased. The records are quite old, and the personal information is not of a particularly sensitive nature. In the circumstances, s. 22(1) does not require the PGT to refuse the applicant access.
The applicant requested a copy of a letter a chiropractor sent to the College in response to the applicant’s complaint about him. The College refused to disclose the letter because it said that doing so would be an unreasonable invasion of the chiropractor’s personal privacy. The College is not required to refuse disclosure of the letter. It contains significant amounts of the applicant’s own personal information to which she is entitled to have access. Nor would disclosure of the remainder of the letter unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the third party chiropractor. The applicant already clearly knows much of that information and its disclosure is desirable to subject the College to public scrutiny.
The applicant requested records from the British Columbia Archives relating to events that occurred at Woodlands School in the early 1960’s. The BC Archives properly withheld the requested records under s. 22(1) and was not required to release them under s. 25(1)(b).
The applicant requested a copy of the report evaluating a research proposal that he submitted for funding through Forestry Innovation Investment. The Ministry provided the applicant with the requested record, which included comments made by the individuals who had reviewed the proposal, but severed the names of the reviewers under s. 22 of FIPPA. The Ministry also later claimed that s. 17 applied and authorized it to sever the names of the reviewers. The statutory presumption under s. 22(3) does not apply in this case. However, there are relevant factors under s. 22(2) that weigh against disclosure of the reviewers’ names and s. 22(1) does apply. Since the Ministry is required by s. 22(1) to sever the names of the reviewers, s. 17 need not be considered.
Applicant requested the names of marriage commissioners who resigned after receiving a letter from the Ministry requesting the resignations of any marriage commissioners who felt they could not solemnize same-sex marriages. Ministry is not required to release the information under s. 25(1)(b) and is required to withhold the information under s. 22(1).
Applicant requested records from files of two human rights investigators. VCHA disclosed a number of records and withheld and severed others under ss. 14 and 22 of the Act. VCHA found to have applied s. 14 correctly. VCHA found to have applied s. 22 correctly to some information and records but not to others. VCHA ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply.
The applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report. The public body provided the majority of the report, severing four lines from the 27 pages under s. 22. The severed information was submitted in confidence to the public body and its disclosure would unfairly expose third parties to harm. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the severed information.
Firefighters’ union requested copy of consultant’s report on labour relations within City fire and rescue service. City disclosed report with portions severed under ss. 17 and 22. Section 17 does not apply. Section 22 applies to some but not all information. City ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply
West Vancouver Police Association requested access to report of Ministry’s review of West Vancouver Police Department. Ministry disclosed report in severed form, withholding portions under s. 22. Ministry ordered to disclose most of withheld information.
Applicant requested complaint record provided by third party to BC Hydro. Third party objected to its disclosure, although he later agreed to disclosure of most of record. Section 22 applies to some but not all of remaining withheld information
Applicant requested access to two reports of investigations into complaints the applicant made about her children’s teacher and about bullying of her children by other students. Section 22 requires the School District to refuse to disclose some, but not all, personal information in the reports. Section 21 is not applicable
Applicant requested records related to himself, his children and his ex-wife. Ministry withheld some information and said applicant had no right of access to records related to his children and ex-wife. Ministry correctly applied s. 77 CFCSA, with some minor exceptions and found to have exercised due diligence in searching for responsive records.
Applicant requested 13-year old complaint records. VPD found to have applied s. 19(1)(a) correctly and, with the exception of hospital employee names, s. 22.
The Ministry disclosed information in audit reports relating to three physicians’
services that were billed to the Medical Services Plan, but refused to disclose some information
from those reports. The information is personal information the disclosure of which would be an
unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the audited physicians under s. 22(1). The
Ministry is not required to disclose information under s. 25(1).
The applicant sought from the public body information that might confirm the
applicant’s suspicions that the public body was systematically biased against him. The public
body withheld from applicant under s. 19 certain information, on the basis of a perceived threat
by the applicant to the safety of public body employees. Public body submitted evidence of
applicant’s past behaviour, but such evidence was insufficient to satisfy the test of reasonable
expectation of threat set out in s. 19(1). Applicant’s personal information withheld under s. 22 is
ordered disclosed. Other s. 22 severances upheld relating to applicant’s family members.
Applicant, a teacher employed by the public body, requested copies of letters about
applicant written by parents. Public body correctly released the substance of third parties’ letters
to the applicant but properly refused under s. 22 to disclose their identifying information.
However, the public body failed to respond in the time permitted by the Act.
The applicant in this case is the daughter of a woman whose attempt to revisit
a mediated settlement of her previous access request to SFU was dealt with in Order 01-16. In
Order 01-16, it was held that SFU need not process the woman’s new access request. The evidence
establishes that the daughter’s access request, made 10 days after Order 01-16 was issued, was
made on her mother’s behalf, as an attempt to circumvent Order 01-16. This is an abuse of process
and will not be allowed. The principle of res judicata also applies. SFU’s decision on the merits
of the daughter’s access request, as an arm’s-length applicant, is upheld.
Applicant requested records related to his employment with the AIBC and to records
related to two other employees. The AIBC withheld several records under ss. 14, 17 and 22. Section 14 found to apply to one record. Section 17 found not to apply. Section 22(4)(e) found to apply to the employees’ employment contracts, job descriptions, salary and benefit information, which is ordered disclosed. Sections 22(1) and 22(3)(d) and (g) found to apply to some withheld
information.
The applicant sought her deceased son’s medical records. The applicant is the nearest relative of the deceased son within the meaning of s. 3(c) of the FOI Regulation, but in the circumstances of this case is not acting on his behalf under that section. Assessing her request as a third party, the Commission has correctly refused access to the son’s personal information under s. 22(1)
The applicant requested access to records showing pass/failure and similar assessment rates of assessors in a program the Justice Institute offers. The Justice Institute is not required by s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose the assessors’ names in association with the pass/failure and other information. In the circumstances of this case, disclosure of their names (their personal information) is not disclosure of employment or occupational history. Nor would it disclose the identities of individuals who have supplied confidential personal evaluations or recommendations or any individual’s personal evaluations. Accordingly, no s. 22(3) presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy applies and there is otherwise no unreasonable invasion of personal privacy
Applicants made a request for letters of reference written by two third parties to a SFU search committee. SFU determined that parts of the letters could be released, including portions that would identify the third party writers. SFU gave the third parties notice of this decision. The third parties requested a review of that decision. The third parties’ personal information is subject to s. 22(3)(h) of the Act and SFU is required to withhold any information that would identify the authors of the letters.
The applicant, the College & Institute Retirees Association of British Columbia, sought access to a listing of the names and addresses of members or beneficiaries of the College Pension Plan who are currently in receipt of a pension or other benefits from the Plan. Because the personal information is to be used for solicitation purposes, the presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22(3)(j) applies. There being no relevant circumstances that favour disclosure, the Pension Corporation is required by s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose this third-party information.
Applicant requested, on behalf of client, names and addresses of 17 heirs at law to an estate. PGT found to have properly refused access under s. 22.
The applicant sought access to the names of all individuals who had, in calendar 2000, made complaints to the Law Society about a lawyer’s conduct. The Law Society is not required to disclose this third-party personal information under s. 25(1) and is required to refuse disclosure under s. 22.
The applicant requested records relating to the College’s accidental disclosure, in 1997, of prescription-related information of two hospital patients. The College initially failed to conduct a reasonable search for records, but corrected that failure by searching again for records during mediation. The College is authorized to withhold a legal opinion under s. 14. The College is required by s. 22(1) to withhold third party personal information.
As agent for an employer, the CLRA made 30 access requests for initial wage rates, and other financial information, from wage loss claims made by employees of the employer to the WCB. The applications arose out of concerns by employers generally that the WCB had, over a number of years, over-estimated initial wage rates for casual workers. WCB refused to disclose such information, relying on ss. 17 and 22. During the inquiry, the WCB abandoned its reliance on s. 17 and relied only on s. 22. The WCB is not required to refuse disclosure of the wage-related information, as disclosure would not, for a number of reasons, unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the employer’s workers.
Applicant sought access to letter sent by a principal to a coach at her daughter’s school, regarding an incident involving her daughter. NVSD initially refused to disclose any part of the letter but later disclosed some. NVSD is required to withhold coach’s personal information consisting of evaluations of, or opinions about, her actions related to the incident. Other information cannot be withheld, either because it is not anyone’s personal information or because its disclosure would not unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the coach or other individuals.
Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1), as information does not consist of advice or recommendations. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld under that section, but s. 22(1) applies, in part on the basis of s. 22(3)(a), to some of the same information. Section 22(3)(d) does not apply to information about ministry employees’ work-related actions, so s. 22(1) does not apply to that information. Ministry found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information found in records relating to SFU’s review of a third party’s employment performance or associated records. Public interest disclosure not required. Personal information was not covered by s. 22(4). SFU was required to disclose minor amounts of information that was not covered by s. 22(1).
Applicant sought records from ICBC related to personal injury claims he had made, some of which resulted in litigation. ICBC did not succeed in s. 14 or s. 17 claims for some of the records. ICBC is required in each case to prove application of litigation privilege to each responsive record, by showing that both elements of the common law test for that privilege have been met in relation to each record. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interests from disclosure of specific information, on a record by record basis. ICBC properly claimed s. 14 for contents of defence counsel’s file, which it continued to withhold. ICBC was required by s. 22 to withhold small amounts of third party personal information.
Applicant sought access to records that contained personal information of a woman whom the applicant had pleaded guilty to having harassed criminally, under the Criminal Code, in 1995. Ministry’s refusal to disclose parts of the records authorized by ss.15(1)(g) and 19(1)(a). Ministry required to refuse to disclose personal information under s. 22(1). Not necessary to deal with Ministry’s reliance on s. 16.
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 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 applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (the University) for access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to all communications mentioning him that were sent to or received by a named individual. The University provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the University was authorized to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and required to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the University to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
The executor of a deceased person’s estate requested the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) provide copies of the deceased’s hospital and nursing home records. VIHA withheld some personal information of third parties on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the third parties’ personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed the decision of VIHA to withhold the information.
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 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 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 records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
The applicant requested all minutes of City Council and committee meetings, emails, and social media messages that included any variation of her name from the City of Pitt Meadows (the City). The City disclosed the records but withheld some information under ss. (13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 14 in full, and its decision under ss. 22(1) in part, and ordered the City to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1) to the applicant.
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).
An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related
to an external investigation of the University’s treatment of the applicant. The University
disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator
determined that the University was authorized to withhold all the information withheld
under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some information withheld under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered the University to disclose that information.
The applicant asked the Board of Education of School District No. 43 (School District) to provide him with access to information about his child’s educational supports and assistance. The School District disclosed responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the School District was authorized to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) and was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the School District to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to the applicant.
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.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to certain records. FHA disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information in them. The applicant requested a review of this decision. FHA also notified a third party that it planned to disclose some records (Audit Reports) to the applicant. The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision. The adjudicator determined that FHA was not required to refuse to disclose the Audit Reports under s. 21(1) of FIPPA, but that it was required to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
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 applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of Victoria (University) for access to records containing information about the University's response to an allegation that the applicant breached the University's Sexualized Violence Prevention and Response Policy. The University withheld the majority of information in the records citing s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal information) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the University was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the University to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
An applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report prepared for the City of Revelstoke (City). The investigation report was partially about the applicant. The City provided the applicant with a copy of the report, but withheld some information in it under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 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 City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
An applicant requested records relating to two courses offered at Simon Fraser University (SFU). SFU responded providing access to records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that SFU had correctly applied s. 22(1) to the personal information at issue, but that it had incorrectly applied it to information that was not personal information. The adjudicator ordered SFU to disclose the information that was not personal information.
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 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 applicants made separate requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) for access to records containing information about them relating to their operation of a foster home. The Ministry withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under ss. 15(1)(d) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The Ministry also decided that some records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(c). The adjudicator determined that some of the disputed records are beyond the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c). Regarding the other records, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold most, but not all, of the disputed information under s. 22(1) and that, given this finding, it is not necessary to also consider s. 15(1)(d).
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.
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. 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(1).
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.
An applicant requested records from the City of Vancouver (City) under the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) related to three “rezoning
enquiries” covering the period from April 2016 to January 2019. The City disclosed records, severing information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 15(1)(l)
(harm to security of property or system), 17(1) (harm to economic interests of public
body) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The applicant disputed
that severing and also complained that the City interpreted his request too narrowly and
did not conduct an adequate search for the responsive records. The adjudicator found
that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some information. The adjudicator also found that
s. 13(1) did not apply to other information and ordered the City to disclose it. It was not
necessary to consider s. 13(1) for some information or to consider ss. 17(1) and 15(1)(l) at all. Finally, the adjudicator found that the City complied with its duty under s. 6(1) to
interpret the request and conduct an adequate search.
The applicant requested a variety of information from Community Living
British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld
other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA).
This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to
ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client
privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no
disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken
together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or
required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the 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.
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 applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) file on its investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. The VPD disclosed some of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 15 (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to the information in dispute and ordered the VPD to refuse the applicant access to it. It was not necessary to consider s. 15.
The applicant requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
The applicant made a request to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to records relating to an investigation the FHA conducted under the Adult Guardianship Act. The FHA withheld the information in dispute under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the FHA was not authorized to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 14 and that the FHA was required to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 22.
A physician requested copies of all information the Medical Services Commission (MSC) held about him. The MSC disclosed the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The physician asked that an inquiry beheld to determine if s. 22(1) applies to the patients’ names and Personal Health Numbers (PHNs) in the records. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to patients’ names and PHNs.
A professor made two requests for records related to an investigation and to certain communications about him. The University of Victoria gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University of Victoria’s decision to refuse the applicant access under ss. 14 and 22.
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 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.
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.
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.
A BC Transit driver requested the dates of hire of his fellow drivers to pursue a dispute with his union over seniority lists. BC Transit refused access to the information under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the dates of hire and ordered BC Transit to refuse access to them.
An applicant requested access to records about the preparation of affidavits for a court action. The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA, to either confirm or deny the existence of the records on the grounds that disclosure of their existence would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed that the LSBC was authorized to rely on s. 8(2)(b).
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
The applicant 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, 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.
The applicant asked Langara College for grades assigned to him by classmates in a business course, as well as those that his classmates assigned to each other. The College refused access on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the applicant’s classmates under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The Adjudicator agreed, but found that the College was required to give the applicant a summary of his grades in a manner that would not identify his classmates.
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 University of British Columbia Law Innocence Project applied for copies of an autopsy report and forensic laboratory report relating to a homicide. BCCS withheld the record under s. 22(1) on the grounds that disclosure of the victim’s medical information would be an unreasonable invasion of her privacy. UBCLIP argued that it required the Reports in order for its contracted forensic expert to complete a full and proper review of the autopsy and form an expert opinion as to whether the conclusions of the Coroner were flawed. It submitted that this circumstance rebutted the presumption that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information and ordered BCCS to withhold the Reports.
A physician requested his entire file from the College. In response, the College disclosed over 1,600 pages of records, withholding other information and records under s. 3(1)(c) and s. 22(1). The College is found to have applied s. 3(1)(c) correctly. The College is also found to have applied s. 22(1) correctly to some information. It is ordered to disclose other information to which s. 22(1) was found not to apply, including “contact information” and the applicant’s own personal information.
Adjudicator granted BC Housing’s request that this matter not proceed to inquiry.
A doctor sought records relating to an harassment investigation about him that resulted in the suspension of his hospital privileges. The PHSA argued solicitor-client privilege applied to most of the information and therefore withheld it. Disclosing the remainder, the PHSA contended, would result in the unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy, contrary to s. 22. Legal professional privilege applied to those records for which s. 14 was asserted, and the PHSA was required to withhold the balance of the disputed information under s. 22 of FIPPA.
The VCHA investigated abuse allegations concerning an elderly woman. Four family members related to the elderly woman requested records from the VCHA about themselves because of concerns they were the subject of these allegations. In considering all of the relevant circumstances, the VCHA is required to withhold the information in dispute under s. 22 of FIPPA. Though the Adult Guardianship Act did not trump FIPPA, VCHA’s obligations under that Act were relevant to determining that the disputed records were provided in confidence.
Applicant requested access to records from an investigation into human rights complaints against him. The PHSA disclosed some records and withheld others under s. 3(1)(b) and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. It also took the position that some pages were not in its custody or control. Section 3(1)(b) found not to apply and PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a decision on entitlement to access respecting those pages. Section 51 of the Evidence Act found to apply to other pages. PHSA found to have custody and control of certain pages and ordered to provide applicant with a decision on access regarding those pages. Section 22 found to apply to some information and not to other information. PHSA ordered to provide the applicant with access to information to which s. 22 was found not to apply.
The applicant requested records from a government program that nominates foreign workers for accelerated immigration. The Ministry disclosed the application forms, position descriptions, required qualifications and job offer letters but withheld some information in those records under s. 21 and s. 22. The test for s. 21 was not met. Some information must be withheld under s. 22 to prevent unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy. Some of the information was not “personal information” and must be disclosed.
Applicant requested records confirming certain types of personal information regarding six individuals in connection with a neighbouring property. ICBC found to have properly refused access to this information under s. 22.
The applicant, a former employee of BC Hydro, requested records relating to himself, a third party and a private company the two had previously shared an interest in. BC Hydro released some records but withheld some in whole or part. BC Hydro was required to disclose some of the records. BC Hydro was also authorized to withhold some of the records under ss. 13(1) and 14 and was required to withhold others under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.
Parents requested access to personal information about themselves and their minor child. School District disclosed most of the requested records, withholding some information under ss. 21 and 22. School District ordered to disclose a few phrases of personal information of one applicant as s. 22 does not apply to it. Section 21 is found not to apply to five pages of records and School District ordered to disclose portions from these pages which are the applicants’ personal information.
Applicant requested access to a document the third party created to describe his workplace interactions with the applicant. Section 22 found to apply to the third party’s personal information in the record and UVic is required to withhold it. It is not reasonable to sever the record as the personal information of applicant and third party is intertwined. This is not an appropriate case to summarize the record.
The applicant requested records relating to a sale of real property conducted by the Public Guardian and Trustee over 30 years ago on behalf of a client who is now deceased. Most of the records in dispute do not contain personal information. In particular, information about the value of a piece of real property is not personal information. The relatively small amount of personal information that is contained in the records relates to persons who are members of the applicant’s family and are now deceased. The records are quite old, and the personal information is not of a particularly sensitive nature. In the circumstances, s. 22(1) does not require the PGT to refuse the applicant access.
Applicant requested the name and address of the registered owner of an identified licence plate. ICBC withheld the information correctly under s. 22(1).
Applicant requested the names of marriage commissioners who resigned after receiving a letter from the Ministry requesting the resignations of any marriage commissioners who felt they could not solemnize same-sex marriages. Ministry is not required to release the information under s. 25(1)(b) and is required to withhold the information under s. 22(1).
Applicant requested records in hands of a named PHSA employee. The PHSA withheld many records on the grounds they are protected by solicitor-client privilege and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. Most records are protected by s. 14 and some information is also protected by s. 22. Small amounts of information are not protected by either exception and must be disclosed.
Applicants requested access to information about themselves in Ministry records. The Ministry withheld some information under s. 77 of the CFCSA. Some information in the only record remaining in dispute falls under s. 77 and must be withheld.
Applicant requested records related to a police investigation into the theft of his vehicle’s licence plates. APD withheld some information under s. 22. Section 22 applies to the information and the APD is required to withhold it.
Applicant requested records from files of two human rights investigators. VCHA disclosed a number of records and withheld and severed others under ss. 14 and 22 of the Act. VCHA found to have applied s. 14 correctly. VCHA found to have applied s. 22 correctly to some information and records but not to others. VCHA ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply.
The applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report. The public body provided the majority of the report, severing four lines from the 27 pages under s. 22. The severed information was submitted in confidence to the public body and its disclosure would unfairly expose third parties to harm. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the severed information.
Union requested name(s) of person(s) who requested information on leave for union business by members of the union executive. School District denied access under s. 22. Section 22 applies to the name of the third party.
Applicant requested access to records related to himself in the public body’s security and infection control areas. PHSA correctly refused access to information under s. 14 and for the most part under s. 22. PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a few items of information withheld under s. 22 and with summary under s. 22(5). A few pages are not in PHSA’s custody or control. Other pages are in PHSA’s control and it is ordered to process them under the Act.
Applicant requested records related to his interactions with a number of named doctors at the PHSA. The PHSA withheld some information under ss. 14 and 22. Applicant objected to decision to withhold information and also questioned the completeness of the PHSA’s response. The PHSA applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases s. 22. The PHSA is ordered to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22. The PHSA did not show that it complied with s. 6(1) in its response and is ordered to do so.
Applicant requested complaint record provided by third party to BC Hydro. Third party objected to its disclosure, although he later agreed to disclosure of most of record. Section 22 applies to some but not all of remaining withheld information
Applicant requested records related to himself. PHSA disclosed large number of records and withheld others under ss. 12(3), 13(1), 14 and 22. Applicant disputed decision to withhold information and also complained about delay in PHSA’s response and records search. PHSA found to have applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases also ss. 13(1) and 22. PHSA found not to have complied with its duties under s. 6(1) and ordered to search again.
Applicant requested records related to himself, his children and his ex-wife. Ministry withheld some information and said applicant had no right of access to records related to his children and ex-wife. Ministry correctly applied s. 77 CFCSA, with some minor exceptions and found to have exercised due diligence in searching for responsive records.
Applicant requested 13-year old complaint records. VPD found to have applied s. 19(1)(a) correctly and, with the exception of hospital employee names, s. 22.
Section 21(1) does not require the Ministry to refuse access to rate information in three contracts for computer consulting services, proposals preceding the contracts or a score sheet comparing proposals. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to refuse to disclose some personal information in the proposals preceding the contracts.
Applicant requested records related to her academic appeal. UBC provided records,
withholding other records and information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13(1), 14 and 22. UBC found to have
applied ss. 3(1)(b), and 14 properly and, with one exception, s. 22 as well. UBC ordered to
disclose some personal information related to applicant. Section 13(1) found not to apply in all
cases and UBC ordered to disclose draft letters.
The applicant requested records about herself and her daughter. Under ss. 21 and 22,
the VSB withheld some information and records. The VSB is found to have applied s. 22
properly and is ordered to prepare a s. 22(5) summary.
Applicant, a teacher employed by the public body, requested copies of letters about
applicant written by parents. Public body correctly released the substance of third parties’ letters
to the applicant but properly refused under s. 22 to disclose their identifying information.
However, the public body failed to respond in the time permitted by the Act.
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry severed some information.
Applicant requested review of response, saying certain records missing. Ministry found to
have complied with s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and to have applied ss. 13(1) and 22
properly to some information.
The Ministry is required by s. 22(1), in this case, to withhold names of private
security firm employees, since s. 22(3)(d) applies and s. 22(4)(i) does not. Not necessary to
decide whether s. 19(1)(a) applies.
The applicant, a former Ministry employee, requested records related to an
investigation into his conduct. The Ministry provided severed copies of the investigation report
and severed copies of interview transcripts, but said it could not provide copies of the audiotapes
of those interviews. Section 22 requires the Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal
information. The Ministry has not complied with its duty under ss. 4(2) and 9(2) regarding
copies of the audiotapes or their severing and must provide the applicant with copies of the
audiotapes, severed as appropriate
The applicant sought her deceased son’s medical records. The applicant is the nearest relative of the deceased son within the meaning of s. 3(c) of the FOI Regulation, but in the circumstances of this case is not acting on his behalf under that section. Assessing her request as a third party, the Commission has correctly refused access to the son’s personal information under s. 22(1)
Applicants made a request for letters of reference written by two third parties to a SFU search committee. SFU determined that parts of the letters could be released, including portions that would identify the third party writers. SFU gave the third parties notice of this decision. The third parties requested a review of that decision. The third parties’ personal information is subject to s. 22(3)(h) of the Act and SFU is required to withhold any information that would identify the authors of the letters.
Applicant requested copies of reports of outside professional activities of named faculty members. UBC provided severed copies, withholding under ss. 22(1) and 22(3)(d) information on their outside professional activities, use of UBC resources, dates and time spent. UBC found to have applied s. 22 properly to information on outside professional activities, dates and time spent. Section 22 found not to apply to information on any use of UBC resources.
The applicant, the College & Institute Retirees Association of British Columbia, sought access to a listing of the names and addresses of members or beneficiaries of the College Pension Plan who are currently in receipt of a pension or other benefits from the Plan. Because the personal information is to be used for solicitation purposes, the presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22(3)(j) applies. There being no relevant circumstances that favour disclosure, the Pension Corporation is required by s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose this third-party information.
The applicants obtained an arbitrator’s award, under the Residential Tenancy Act, for rent and utilities owed by their former tenant. They asked the Ministry for her new address to collect the money owed under the award, but the Ministry refused under s. 22(1). None of the s. 22(3) presumed unreasonable invasions of personal privacy applies here. It is relevant that the address was supplied in confidence to the arbitrator, but it is also relevant to a fair determination of the applicants’ legal rights. The Ministry is not required to refuse access, there being no unreasonable invasion of privacy in this case.
The applicant requested the .name of an individual who had approached police about distributing posters about the applicant in the community. Police refused access to third party’s name, first under s. 19(1)(a) and later also under s. 22. Section 19(1)(a) found not to apply, but police found to have withheld name correctly under s. 22.
The applicant requested copies of communications about herself, dating from 1989, that the School District had in its custody. The School District properly refused access on the basis that it had received the applicant’s personal information, and third-party personal information, in confidence and disclosure would unreasonably invade third-party personal privacy. The applicant has not shown that the information is relevant to fair determination of her rights or that other relevant circumstances favour disclosure. As it is not possible to sever or summarize the records without disclosing third-party personal information and unreasonably invading third-party personal privacy, the School District must withhold the entire communications.
As agent for an employer, the CLRA made 30 access requests for initial wage rates, and other financial information, from wage loss claims made by employees of the employer to the WCB. The applications arose out of concerns by employers generally that the WCB had, over a number of years, over-estimated initial wage rates for casual workers. WCB refused to disclose such information, relying on ss. 17 and 22. During the inquiry, the WCB abandoned its reliance on s. 17 and relied only on s. 22. The WCB is not required to refuse disclosure of the wage-related information, as disclosure would not, for a number of reasons, unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the employer’s workers.
Applicant sought access to letter sent by a principal to a coach at her daughter’s school, regarding an incident involving her daughter. NVSD initially refused to disclose any part of the letter but later disclosed some. NVSD is required to withhold coach’s personal information consisting of evaluations of, or opinions about, her actions related to the incident. Other information cannot be withheld, either because it is not anyone’s personal information or because its disclosure would not unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the coach or other individuals.
The applicant had received, under the 1995 Adoption Act, a copy of his birth registration, which identified a particular woman as his birth mother. Applicant then requested access to records under the Act respecting his adoption, in order to establish his aboriginal ancestry. Ministry refused to disclose the name of the applicant’s putative birth father or personal information of other third parties. The applicant is not entitled to the personal information, as its disclosure would unreasonably invade the father’s personal privacy. Disclosure of identifying information of birth parents almost always will unreasonably invade their personal privacy under s. 22(1). Applicant also is not entitled to personal information of other third parties compiled in connection with his adoption, as disclosure would unreasonably invade their personal privacy.
An auto body shop applied for records in the custody of ICBC. The records consisted of internal e-mails and documents relating to the ongoing relationship between the shop and ICBC. ICBC had denied the shop accreditation, resulting in an appeal and revocation of the shop’s vendor number. ICBC did not succeed completely on its application of ss. 13 and 17 to a vast number of records. ICBC is required to demonstrate the information it withheld under s. 13 was created for the purpose of advising or recommending a specific course of action or range of actions or that it so advises or recommends. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interest from disclosure of specific information. ICBC succeeded on its application of s. 14 to records created for the dominant purpose of preparing for, advising on or conducting litigation. ICBC succeeded in its application of s. 15 to certain investigation records. The Material Damage Specialist Fraud Unit’s activities qualified as law enforcement, certain records were part of an actual investigation and ICBC demonstrated a reasonable expectation of harm. ICBC was able to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that disclosure of certain identities could threaten certain individuals’ safety or mental or physical health. Thus s. 19 was accepted for certain identifying information. ICBC properly applied s. 22 to certain third party personal information, but it was not properly applied to ICBC employee names and identities.
Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1), as information does not consist of advice or recommendations. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld under that section, but s. 22(1) applies, in part on the basis of s. 22(3)(a), to some of the same information. Section 22(3)(d) does not apply to information about ministry employees’ work-related actions, so s. 22(1) does not apply to that information. Ministry found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
The applicant requested a copy of confidential investigation reports, and confidential witness statements, respecting two investigations into the applicant’s complaint about a manager’s behaviour. Ministry disclosed the bulk of the investigation reports in both investigations. The withheld witness statements and other information about the manager’s behaviour are part of manager’s employment history under s. 22(3)(d), but are not personal evaluations or personnel evaluations of the manager under s. 22(3)(g). The information, which was submitted by third parties in confidence under s. 22(2)(f), is not relevant to a fair determination of the applicant’s legal rights, so s. 22(2)(c) does not apply. Disclosure would not unfairly expose third parties to harm or unfairly damage their reputations under s. 22(2)(e) or (h). The applicant is not entitled to personal information submitted in confidence for purposes of the investigations, including the manager’s personal information and the witnesses’ personal information. Section 22(5) summary not required in this case.
Applicant, who was formerly investigated by BCSC, sought access to BCSC files about its (now closed) investigation. BCSC was entitled to withhold information that would identify confidential informants and was required to withhold third party personal information compiled as part of its investigation into a possible violation of law.
Applicant sought records from ICBC related to personal injury claims he had made, some of which resulted in litigation. ICBC did not succeed in s. 14 or s. 17 claims for some of the records. ICBC is required in each case to prove application of litigation privilege to each responsive record, by showing that both elements of the common law test for that privilege have been met in relation to each record. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interests from disclosure of specific information, on a record by record basis. ICBC properly claimed s. 14 for contents of defence counsel’s file, which it continued to withhold. ICBC was required by s. 22 to withhold small amounts of third party personal information.
Applicant sought access to Ministry records about him. Applicant not entitled to see some of the third party personal information withheld from the record in issue. Third party personal information consisted of employment history of third party. Disclosure would be unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy.
Applicant sought records relating to him, and a legal opinion about him, in Ministry’s custody. Ministry authorized to withhold information under s. 14. Ministry not authorized to withhold information under s. 17(1), but Ministry required to withhold same information under s. 22.
Applicant sought access to records that contained personal information of a woman whom the applicant had pleaded guilty to having harassed criminally, under the Criminal Code, in 1995. Ministry’s refusal to disclose parts of the records authorized by ss.15(1)(g) and 19(1)(a). Ministry required to refuse to disclose personal information under s. 22(1). Not necessary to deal with Ministry’s reliance on s. 16.
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 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 asked Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for access to all documents sent to or received by a specific TRU employee that mention the applicant. TRU disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 19(1)(a) (disclosure harmful to individual safety) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU is required to withhold almost all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that TRU was not required or permitted to withhold a small amount of information under any FIPPA exception to disclosure and required TRU to provide this information to the applicant. Section 19(1)(a) was not at issue with respect to any information that the adjudicator required TRU to provide to the applicant.
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 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 records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about his interactions with outpatient services. The Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information from them under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires Island Health to refuse to disclose the information.
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.
The applicant requested all minutes of City Council and committee meetings, emails, and social media messages that included any variation of her name from the City of Pitt Meadows (the City). The City disclosed the records but withheld some information under ss. (13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 14 in full, and its decision under ss. 22(1) in part, and ordered the City to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1) to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the BC Securities Commission (BCSC) for records relating to the BCSC’s penalty collection rate, amendments to the Securities Act, and the BCSC’s collection action against the applicant. The BCSC withheld the information in dispute under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(1), 13(1), and 22(1) applied to some, but not all, of the information in dispute and ordered the BCSC to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under those sections. The adjudicator also ordered the BCSC to reconsider its decision to withhold certain information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient evidence that the BCSC considered all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to withhold that information.
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).
An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related
to an external investigation of the University’s treatment of the applicant. The University
disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator
determined that the University was authorized to withhold all the information withheld
under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some information withheld under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered the University to disclose that information.
An applicant requested access to records related to the Metro Vancouver Transit Police’s (MVTP’s) investigation into a dispute in which he was involved. The MVTP disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information and records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the MVTP was required to withhold most of the information under s. 22(1) and ordered the MVTP to disclose the remainder of the information.
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.
The applicant asked the Board of Education of School District No. 43 (School District) to provide him with access to information about his child’s educational supports and assistance. The School District disclosed responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the School District was authorized to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) and was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the School District to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to 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).
An applicant requested records created pursuant to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which requires crown counsel to report adverse judicial comments on a peace officer’s testimony. The Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) withheld information in two of the responsive records under s. 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry also decided that the name of the involved police officer could be disclosed, and notified the police officer’s employer, who requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The applicant and another party were also invited to participate in the inquiry.
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.
An applicant requested from the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) a copy of a police report concerning him in its possession. VIHA withheld portions of the report under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that ss. 22(1) applied to all of the information at issue and required VIHA to refuse to disclose it.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
An applicant requested access to all records held by the Ministry naming two individuals and created within a specific date range. The Ministry refused access to some information in the responsive records under several exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA but only s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) was in issue during the inquiry. The adjudicator confirmed that the Ministry correctly applied s. 22 to most of the information in dispute but ordered the Ministry to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to certain records. FHA disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information in them. The applicant requested a review of this decision. FHA also notified a third party that it planned to disclose some records (Audit Reports) to the applicant. The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision. The adjudicator determined that FHA was not required to refuse to disclose the Audit Reports under s. 21(1) of FIPPA, but that it was required to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of Victoria (University) for access to records containing information about the University's response to an allegation that the applicant breached the University's Sexualized Violence Prevention and Response Policy. The University withheld the majority of information in the records citing s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal information) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the University was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the University to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
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.
The applicant made a request to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records about her employment with PHSA. PHSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that PHSA correctly applied ss. 14 and 22(1). As a result, it was unnecessary to consider s. 13.
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 a copy of a workplace investigation report prepared for the City of Revelstoke (City). The investigation report was partially about the applicant. The City provided the applicant with a copy of the report, but withheld some information in it under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 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 City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
An applicant requested records relating to two courses offered at Simon Fraser University (SFU). SFU responded providing access to records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that SFU had correctly applied s. 22(1) to the personal information at issue, but that it had incorrectly applied it to information that was not personal information. The adjudicator ordered SFU to disclose the information that was not personal information.
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.
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).
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 requested access to her own personal information from the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC) relating to a complaint that she had made against a member of the CPABC. The CPABC
disclosed some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 15 (harm to law enforcement) and
22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (FIPPA). The CPABC also withheld all of the information under s. 69 of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act (CPAA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(7) of
FIPPA overrides s. 69 of the CPAA. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(3), 13(1) and 15 of FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all
of the information. The adjudicator ordered the CPABC to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.
An applicant requested 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.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to an agreement between the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) and two named individuals, along with other related documents. The Ministry withheld the entire agreement on the basis it was
protected by settlement privilege, but provided the applicant with partial access to other records by withholding information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the agreement on the basis of settlement privilege, but that it was required to withhold the agreement under s. 22(1). The adjudicator also found the Ministry was required to withhold most of the remaining information at issue under s. 22(1). The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. 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(1).
A journalist asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for records related to a news release on fraud cases that ICBC had investigated. ICBC disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). ICBC later argued that many of the records were court records and thus excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(a) (now s. 3(3)(a)). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information in dispute (drivers’ names and court and police file numbers) and ordered ICBC to refuse the journalist access to this information. The adjudicator also found that the issue of whether s. 3(1)(a) applies to some of the records was moot, as ICBC had already disclosed them in severed form.
The applicant requested information about short-term rental accommodation
and Airbnb in the City of Vancouver. The City refused access to the requested
information under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 19(1) (harm to individual safety), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to a small amount of the
information under ss. 15(1)(f), 19(1)(a) and 21(1). However, none of the exceptions applied to the rest of the disputed information and the City was ordered to disclose it to the applicant.
An applicant requested from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) records containing their personal information. VicPD 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 VicPD had correctly applied the exceptions to disclosure and confirmed its decision to withhold the information at issue.
The applicant requested the full names of the members of a community panel the City of Vancouver (City) convened to make a recommendation about a new
arterial road. The City decided to release all the names of the panelists, despite the objections of one panelist (the Panelist). The Panelist requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold their name. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires the City to withhold the Panelist’s name.
An applicant requested the names and hometowns of the winners of a Lotto
6/49 jackpot. The BC Lottery Corporation (BCLC) refused to disclose the responsive
records under s. 19(1) (disclosure harmful to individual 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 adjudicator found that ss 19(1)
and 22(1) applied to the information at issue and ordered BCLC to withhold the information
The applicant made requests under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Citizens’
Services (Ministries) for access to records containing any and all allegations made by a
named individual against the applicant, either in writing or in an audio recording. The
Ministries released the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some records
and information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal
privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested a review of the Ministries’ decisions. The
adjudicator concluded that the Ministries were required to refuse to disclose some of the
disputed information under s. 22(1), including most of two audio recordings, but were
required to disclose the balance of the disputed information to the applicant.
The applicant 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.
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 applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) file on its investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. The VPD disclosed some of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 15 (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to the information in dispute and ordered the VPD to refuse the applicant access to it. It was not necessary to consider s. 15.
An applicant requested access to all records about himself held by BC Transit. BC Transit withheld some information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). This order addresses BC Transit’s decision to withhold the name of one of its employees under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the name of the employee in the circumstances.
The applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investigation that led to the well known 2012 Ministry employee firings. The Ministry provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This order considers ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 applied, and that s. 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that she found s. 22 did not apply to.
An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal information. The public body refused access to information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that ss. 13,14 and 22 applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 17 did not. The adjudicator ordered the public body to disclose a small amount of information to the applicant.
The applicant requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
In Order F20-18, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency) to produce 20 pages of records to the OIPC so that she could make a decision respecting the public body’s application of s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) to those 20 pages.The public body complied, producing the records for the adjudicator’s review. The public body also reconsidered its application of s. 22 to 18 pages of the records and decided to disclose those pages to the applicant. The adjudicator confirmed that s. 22 did not require the public body to withhold those 18 pages and found that s. 22 applied to the information withheld under that section in the remaining two pages.
The applicant requested documents from BC Hydro relating to contractors who bid for a construction project. BC Hydro withheld some information from two pages under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed BC Hydro’s decision.
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.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) to records related to her and her employment for a specified time period. The Ministry withheld information in the records on the basis ss. 13(1), 15(1)(g) and/or s. 22(1) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply to the records since the information did not qualify as advice or recommendations, but the Ministry was authorized to withhold some information under s. 15(1)(g) as it was related to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The adjudicator also determined that disclosing some of the information in dispute would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy and the Ministry was required to withhold it under s. 22(1). Lastly, the adjudicator found the Ministry did not fulfill its obligations under s. 22(5) to provide the applicant with a summary of personal information supplied in confidence about the applicant in a particular record and ordered it to do so.
An employee requested his personnel file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The City of Surrey (City) disclosed many records but also withheld information related to its investigation of his off-duty conduct under several exceptions in FIPPA: ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations); 15(1) (harm to law enforcement); 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations); 17(1) (harm to public body?s financial or economic interests); 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety); and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 16(1)(b) applied to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that ss. 15(1)(a) and (d), 17(1), 19(1)(a) and (b) and 22(1) did not apply to the remaining withheld information and ordered that the City disclose this information to the employee.
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 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.
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.
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested records related to communications strategies regarding the Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI). The University of British Columbia (UBC) disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed UBC’s decision regarding s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered UBC to disclose other information to which s. 22(1) does not apply.
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, 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.
The applicant asked for any records with his name on them. The City disclosed some records, withholding information under ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence) and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The Adjudicator found that all three exceptions applied.
The applicant requested 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.
A criminology professor requested decisions of the College on physicians disciplined for sexually inappropriate behaviour. The College disclosed a copy of an Agreement in which a physician admitted he had inappropriately hugged and kissed a patient and agreed to the College imposing discipline on him. The College previously made a separate public disclosure of the identity of the physician, a description of the charge against him, and the details of the discipline it imposed. The College withheld, under s. 22(1) of FIPPA, all information identifying the complainant and the physician, as well as the medical, educational and employment history of the physician. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the medical information of the complainant and the medical, educational and employment history of the physician, but not to the identity of the physician, the details of the charge or the terms of the discipline it imposed. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose this information in the Agreement.
The University of British Columbia Law Innocence Project applied for copies of an autopsy report and forensic laboratory report relating to a homicide. BCCS withheld the record under s. 22(1) on the grounds that disclosure of the victim’s medical information would be an unreasonable invasion of her privacy. UBCLIP argued that it required the Reports in order for its contracted forensic expert to complete a full and proper review of the autopsy and form an expert opinion as to whether the conclusions of the Coroner were flawed. It submitted that this circumstance rebutted the presumption that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information and ordered BCCS to withhold the Reports.
A bus driver requested copies of complaints that students made against him regarding his behaviour when transporting them on a school trip. The School District provided him with one record in its entirety and another with all of the information, except for the names of the students, which it withheld under s. 22. The bus driver requested a review in order to obtain access to the names of the students and their contact information. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) of FIPPA applied to the names of the students, because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the students’ personal privacy.
A journalist requested correspondence between BCLC and a director of a gaming company, who was also a former Chair of the Board of Directors of BCLC. BCLC identified email correspondence between the CEO of BCLC, as he then was, and the director to be responsive to the request and decided to disclose the records to the journalist. BCLC provided notice of the request to the director. The director requested a review on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA and would harm the interests of one of his businesses under s. 21. Section 22 applies only to the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties. The journalist argues that s. 25 of FIPPA requires disclosure of the correspondence as being in the public interest. Section 25 does not apply to any of the information. Section 21 does not apply to any of the information. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to withhold the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties and disclose the remainder of the information.
A physician requested his entire file from the College. In response, the College disclosed over 1,600 pages of records, withholding other information and records under s. 3(1)(c) and s. 22(1). The College is found to have applied s. 3(1)(c) correctly. The College is also found to have applied s. 22(1) correctly to some information. It is ordered to disclose other information to which s. 22(1) was found not to apply, including “contact information” and the applicant’s own personal information.
The applicant requested a police report from the Abbotsford Police which disclosed the report in severed form. The APB was found to have severed information correctly under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 19(1).
A nurse requested a copy of a job reference about her that her employer, a physician, had sent to VIHA. VIHA refused access to the record in its entirety under s. 22(2)(f), saying the physician had supplied the reference in confidence. VIHA did not establish that the physician supplied the reference in confidence. It also did not discharge its burden of proving that the applicant was not entitled to have access to her own personal information. VIHA is ordered to disclose the entire record.
An applicant requested details of a settlement that a former employee received from the City. The City withheld the settlement agreement in its entirety under s. 22, on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the former employee’s personal privacy. The applicant subsequently narrowed the request to the amount of money the City paid the former employee, as provided in the settlement agreement. Section 22 does not apply to the information withheld, because disclosure is desirable for public scrutiny. The City is ordered to disclose the financial amount paid to the former employee.
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested the records of the NWPB investigation into the incident. NWPB disclosed much of the information. Section 22(1) found not to apply to most of the information withheld under that exception and NWPB ordered to disclose it, subject to reconsideration of s. 15(1)g). Third parties found not to be “confidential sources of law enforcement information” and s. 15(1)(d) therefore does not apply. Some information relates to or was used in the “exercise of prosecutorial discretion”. However New Westminster Police Board found not to have exercised discretion properly in applying s.15(1)(g) and is ordered to reconsider its decision.
Three applicants requested access to records related to termination of employees, severance paid and discipline imposed following an investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers into ICBC’s Material Damage Training and Research Facility. An affected third party requested a review of ICBC’s decision to disclose severed records related to him. ICBC’s proposed application of s. 22 found to be correct except for amount of third party’s severance which is ordered disclosed for public scrutiny reasons
The applicant requested records compiled under s. 86 of the Gaming Control Act reporting suspected or actual illegal activities in registered gaming establishments and casinos. This Order follows Order F08-03 wherein the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the records under s. 15 or required to withhold them under s. 21 but was required withhold some personal information under s. 22. Following a request by the third parties, Order F08-07 was issued granting all parties the opportunity to make further argument concerning whether the names of casino employees which appear in the s. 86 reports should be withheld under s. 22. The third parties argued that the names of their employees, including the writers of the s. 86 reports, should not be disclosed. The Ministry must disclose the names of the s. 86 report writers and other employees acting in the course of their employment responsibilities. However, the Ministry is required to withhold the names of employees who are identified in the reports as being threatened or assaulted, who were subject to investigation or who were witnesses to an incident.
Adjudicator's decision that new evidence does not meet the test for re-opening Order F08-13. Other issues raised on the judicial reviews also do not trigger re-opening. Consideration of remaining records could proceed if order were not stayed.
The applicant requested access to electronic copies of 70 fields of Foundation Skills Assessment student summary data for a certain period, in order to carry out statistical research on the data. The Ministry refused access under s. 22. In his inquiry submission, the applicant offered to reduce the scope of his request to a few fields. The Ministry provided three options for disclosure of the narrower set of data, with Personal Education Numbers (PENs) encrypted, which in its view would not unreasonably invade individual student privacy. Ministry is ordered to disclose data in accordance with the option involving disclosure of the narrowed data with PENs encrypted and populations or cells of fewer than five students suppressed.
An applicant requested plans from the City of Fernie submitted by a third party to obtain a permit to build a house. The third party argued that disclosing the plans would unreasonably invade his privacy and result in harm to his business interests. Those arguments were without merit and the City was required to disclose the plans. The information in the plans, consisting primarily of external drawings of the house, was for the most part already apparent by visual observation of the property.
Parents requested access to personal information about themselves and their minor child. School District disclosed most of the requested records, withholding some information under ss. 21 and 22. School District ordered to disclose a few phrases of personal information of one applicant as s. 22 does not apply to it. Section 21 is found not to apply to five pages of records and School District ordered to disclose portions from these pages which are the applicants’ personal information.
The applicant requested a report of an investigation into an incident involving trees which were mistakenly cut down by UBC employees. UBC released the report, but withheld the names and positions of the employees who were involved in the incident and those who were interviewed in the investigation. UBC is required by s. 22 of FIPPA to withhold the names of the employees
Applicant requested access to a document the third party created to describe his workplace interactions with the applicant. Section 22 found to apply to the third party’s personal information in the record and UVic is required to withhold it. It is not reasonable to sever the record as the personal information of applicant and third party is intertwined. This is not an appropriate case to summarize the record.
Applicant requested copy of his son’s suicide note. Public body denied access under s. 22. Relevant circumstances, including applicant’s wish for “closure”, do not rebut the presumed invasion of third-party privacy. Public body is ordered to deny access to the personal information in the note.
The applicant requested a copy of the report evaluating a research proposal that he submitted for funding through Forestry Innovation Investment. The Ministry provided the applicant with the requested record, which included comments made by the individuals who had reviewed the proposal, but severed the names of the reviewers under s. 22 of FIPPA. The Ministry also later claimed that s. 17 applied and authorized it to sever the names of the reviewers. The statutory presumption under s. 22(3) does not apply in this case. However, there are relevant factors under s. 22(2) that weigh against disclosure of the reviewers’ names and s. 22(1) does apply. Since the Ministry is required by s. 22(1) to sever the names of the reviewers, s. 17 need not be considered.
Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56.
Applicant requested the name and address of the registered owner of an identified licence plate. ICBC withheld the information correctly under s. 22(1).
Applicants requested access to information about themselves in Ministry records. The Ministry withheld some information under s. 77 of the CFCSA. Some information in the only record remaining in dispute falls under s. 77 and must be withheld.
The applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report. The public body provided the majority of the report, severing four lines from the 27 pages under s. 22. The severed information was submitted in confidence to the public body and its disclosure would unfairly expose third parties to harm. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the severed information.
Firefighters’ union requested copy of consultant’s report on labour relations within City fire and rescue service. City disclosed report with portions severed under ss. 17 and 22. Section 17 does not apply. Section 22 applies to some but not all information. City ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply
The applicant sought access to records of a police investigation into a probable homicide. Although the death occurred a number of years ago, the investigation is ongoing and s. 15 authorizes the APD to withhold the information it withheld. Section 16 also authorizes, and s. 22 requires, the APD to withhold information. The APD’s decision is upheld
Applicant requested complaint record provided by third party to BC Hydro. Third party objected to its disclosure, although he later agreed to disclosure of most of record. Section 22 applies to some but not all of remaining withheld information
The applicant requested records detailing the operations of ICBC’s Glass Express program, including records relating to suspensions of glass vendors’ rights under the program. ICBC properly applied ss. 14 and 22(1) and, in some places, s. 13(1). Some information withheld under s. 13(1) is ordered disclosed. Information withheld under s. 17(1) is ordered disclosed.
Applicant requested access to two reports of investigations into complaints the applicant made about her children’s teacher and about bullying of her children by other students. Section 22 requires the School District to refuse to disclose some, but not all, personal information in the reports. Section 21 is not applicable
The applicant requested her adoption file from the Ministry. The Ministry responded with records, severing information about third parties including the name of the applicant’s birth father under s. 22. The Ministry found to have applied s. 22 properly to the severed records.
Applicant requested records related to himself, his children and his ex-wife. Ministry withheld some information and said applicant had no right of access to records related to his children and ex-wife. Ministry correctly applied s. 77 CFCSA, with some minor exceptions and found to have exercised due diligence in searching for responsive records.
Applicant requested 13-year old complaint records. VPD found to have applied s. 19(1)(a) correctly and, with the exception of hospital employee names, s. 22.
Applicant requested review of School District’s decision under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain records. Third-party teacher requested review of School District’s decision to disclose investigator’s report and hearing records in severed form. School District found to have applied s. 8(2)(b) properly and to have correctly decided to sever and disclose report and hearing records.
Parents requested access to two investigation reports regarding a third-party teacher. Teacher requested a review of the School District’s decision to disclose reports in severed form. School District found to have correctly decided to disclose severed reports.
The City is required to withhold some third-party personal information in records of
complaints to the City about the applicants’ property. The City is required to withhold telephone
numbers, fax numbers, e-mail addresses, employment information and personal opinions or
observations not related to the applicants, but must disclose the rest to the applicants.
The Ministry disclosed information in audit reports relating to three physicians’
services that were billed to the Medical Services Plan, but refused to disclose some information
from those reports. The information is personal information the disclosure of which would be an
unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the audited physicians under s. 22(1). The
Ministry is not required to disclose information under s. 25(1).
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry provided records to the
applicant but severed some information and withheld other records. Section 22 requires the
Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal information. Ministry found to have applied
s. 22 properly to the severed and withheld records and to have complied with s. 6(1) duty in
searching for records.
The applicant sought from the public body information that might confirm the
applicant’s suspicions that the public body was systematically biased against him. The public
body withheld from applicant under s. 19 certain information, on the basis of a perceived threat
by the applicant to the safety of public body employees. Public body submitted evidence of
applicant’s past behaviour, but such evidence was insufficient to satisfy the test of reasonable
expectation of threat set out in s. 19(1). Applicant’s personal information withheld under s. 22 is
ordered disclosed. Other s. 22 severances upheld relating to applicant’s family members.
The applicant requested records about herself and her daughter. Under ss. 21 and 22,
the VSB withheld some information and records. The VSB is found to have applied s. 22
properly and is ordered to prepare a s. 22(5) summary.
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry severed some information.
Applicant requested review of response, saying certain records missing. Ministry found to
have complied with s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and to have applied ss. 13(1) and 22
properly to some information.
The applicant sought access to various Law Society records related to complaints he
had made about various lawyers. Order 02-01 and Order No. 260-1998 addressed many of the
records in dispute here and issue estoppel is found to apply to information dealt with in those
decisions. In the case of some but not all of the information in other records, the Law Society is
authorized to refuse to disclose information subject to s. 14 and is required to refuse to disclose
third-party personal information protected by s. 22.
The applicant complained to the College about the conduct of a College member.
The College disclosed 140 records from its complaint file, but refused to disclose, in their
entirety, 19 records. The College has failed to establish that s. 3(1)(b), s. 12(3)(b) or s. 15(2)(b)
apply. It is authorized to refuse disclosure of some information under ss. 13(1) and 14 and is
required to refuse disclosure by s. 22(3)(d) and (g). Section 22(1) does not require the College to
refuse the applicant access to her own personal information.
The applicant, a former Ministry employee, requested records related to an
investigation into his conduct. The Ministry provided severed copies of the investigation report
and severed copies of interview transcripts, but said it could not provide copies of the audiotapes
of those interviews. Section 22 requires the Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal
information. The Ministry has not complied with its duty under ss. 4(2) and 9(2) regarding
copies of the audiotapes or their severing and must provide the applicant with copies of the
audiotapes, severed as appropriate
The applicant requested records relating both to herself and to her child, of whom she
no longer has legal care following apprehension of the child and subsequent court orders.
Records had previously been disclosed to the applicant’s various legal counsel three times. The
public body is ordered to make additional disclosure to applicant, based on uncertainty of
evidence regarding previous disclosures. Sections 76 and 77 of the Child, Family and
Community Service Act found to have been properly applied to the information severed or
withheld by the public body.
Through her legal counsel, the applicant made a request to the public body for
records regarding a complaint she had made respecting mental health services she received from
the public body. The public body’s limited severing of personal information from a consultant’s
report that had been prepared in response to the complaint is upheld under s. 22. The public body
also discharged its duty to the applicant to conduct an adequate search for records.
Applicant requested records related to his employment with the AIBC and to records
related to two other employees. The AIBC withheld several records under ss. 14, 17 and 22. Section 14 found to apply to one record. Section 17 found not to apply. Section 22(4)(e) found to apply to the employees’ employment contracts, job descriptions, salary and benefit information, which is ordered disclosed. Sections 22(1) and 22(3)(d) and (g) found to apply to some withheld
information.
Applicants made a request for letters of reference written by two third parties to a SFU search committee. SFU determined that parts of the letters could be released, including portions that would identify the third party writers. SFU gave the third parties notice of this decision. The third parties requested a review of that decision. The third parties’ personal information is subject to s. 22(3)(h) of the Act and SFU is required to withhold any information that would identify the authors of the letters.
The applicant, the College & Institute Retirees Association of British Columbia, sought access to a listing of the names and addresses of members or beneficiaries of the College Pension Plan who are currently in receipt of a pension or other benefits from the Plan. Because the personal information is to be used for solicitation purposes, the presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under s. 22(3)(j) applies. There being no relevant circumstances that favour disclosure, the Pension Corporation is required by s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose this third-party information.
The applicant sought access to the names of all individuals who had, in calendar 2000, made complaints to the Law Society about a lawyer’s conduct. The Law Society is not required to disclose this third-party personal information under s. 25(1) and is required to refuse disclosure under s. 22.
The applicant requested the .name of an individual who had approached police about distributing posters about the applicant in the community. Police refused access to third party’s name, first under s. 19(1)(a) and later also under s. 22. Section 19(1)(a) found not to apply, but police found to have withheld name correctly under s. 22.
As agent for an employer, the CLRA made 30 access requests for initial wage rates, and other financial information, from wage loss claims made by employees of the employer to the WCB. The applications arose out of concerns by employers generally that the WCB had, over a number of years, over-estimated initial wage rates for casual workers. WCB refused to disclose such information, relying on ss. 17 and 22. During the inquiry, the WCB abandoned its reliance on s. 17 and relied only on s. 22. The WCB is not required to refuse disclosure of the wage-related information, as disclosure would not, for a number of reasons, unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the employer’s workers.
The applicant had received, under the 1995 Adoption Act, a copy of his birth registration, which identified a particular woman as his birth mother. Applicant then requested access to records under the Act respecting his adoption, in order to establish his aboriginal ancestry. Ministry refused to disclose the name of the applicant’s putative birth father or personal information of other third parties. The applicant is not entitled to the personal information, as its disclosure would unreasonably invade the father’s personal privacy. Disclosure of identifying information of birth parents almost always will unreasonably invade their personal privacy under s. 22(1). Applicant also is not entitled to personal information of other third parties compiled in connection with his adoption, as disclosure would unreasonably invade their personal privacy.
An auto body shop applied for records in the custody of ICBC. The records consisted of internal e-mails and documents relating to the ongoing relationship between the shop and ICBC. ICBC had denied the shop accreditation, resulting in an appeal and revocation of the shop’s vendor number. ICBC did not succeed completely on its application of ss. 13 and 17 to a vast number of records. ICBC is required to demonstrate the information it withheld under s. 13 was created for the purpose of advising or recommending a specific course of action or range of actions or that it so advises or recommends. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interest from disclosure of specific information. ICBC succeeded on its application of s. 14 to records created for the dominant purpose of preparing for, advising on or conducting litigation. ICBC succeeded in its application of s. 15 to certain investigation records. The Material Damage Specialist Fraud Unit’s activities qualified as law enforcement, certain records were part of an actual investigation and ICBC demonstrated a reasonable expectation of harm. ICBC was able to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that disclosure of certain identities could threaten certain individuals’ safety or mental or physical health. Thus s. 19 was accepted for certain identifying information. ICBC properly applied s. 22 to certain third party personal information, but it was not properly applied to ICBC employee names and identities.
Applicant sought copies of interview notes taken by WCB’s accident investigator, and names of witnesses found in the investigator’s accident investigation report, regarding the workplace death of her husband. Investigation was conducted in 1998. After close of inquiry, WCB abandoned reliance on s. 15(1). WCB continued to withhold personal information of some witnesses under s. 22(1). Witnesses’ identities are known to each other and the witnesses are known to the applicant. WCB not required to withhold personal information under s. 22(1), including factual observations. Section 22(5) not applicable.
Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1), as information does not consist of advice or recommendations. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld under that section, but s. 22(1) applies, in part on the basis of s. 22(3)(a), to some of the same information. Section 22(3)(d) does not apply to information about ministry employees’ work-related actions, so s. 22(1) does not apply to that information. Ministry found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information found in records relating to SFU’s review of a third party’s employment performance or associated records. Public interest disclosure not required. Personal information was not covered by s. 22(4). SFU was required to disclose minor amounts of information that was not covered by s. 22(1).
Applicant, who was formerly investigated by BCSC, sought access to BCSC files about its (now closed) investigation. BCSC was entitled to withhold information that would identify confidential informants and was required to withhold third party personal information compiled as part of its investigation into a possible violation of law.
Applicant sought access to Ministry records about him. Applicant not entitled to see some of the third party personal information withheld from the record in issue. Third party personal information consisted of employment history of third party. Disclosure would be unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy.
Applicant sought access to school counsellor’s notes of interviews with applicant’s children. School board required to refuse disclosure of student’s personal information under s. 22(1) and authorized to refuse to disclose same information on the basis of s. 19 (1).
Applicant sought records relating to him, and a legal opinion about him, in Ministry’s custody. Ministry authorized to withhold information under s. 14. Ministry not authorized to withhold information under s. 17(1), but Ministry required to withhold same information under s. 22.
Applicant sought access to records that contained personal information of a woman whom the applicant had pleaded guilty to having harassed criminally, under the Criminal Code, in 1995. Ministry’s refusal to disclose parts of the records authorized by ss.15(1)(g) and 19(1)(a). Ministry required to refuse to disclose personal information under s. 22(1). Not necessary to deal with Ministry’s reliance on s. 16.
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 records about employee exit interviews conducted by the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (Commission). The Commission disclosed some responsive records but withheld information from them and other records in their entirety pursuant to s. 22(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the Commission was required to withhold almost all the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Commission to disclose the information it was not required to withhold to the applicant.
An applicant requested access to her deceased mother’s medical records from Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health). Fraser Health refused the applicant’s access request, taking the position that the applicant was not acting on behalf of her mother under s. 5(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation, and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. During the inquiry, Fraser Health disclosed some information in the responsive records. The adjudicator determined that the applicant was not acting on behalf of her mother, and that disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy under s. 22(1).
An applicant requested 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.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for records related to the Ministry’s inspection of the applicant’s property. The Ministry responded to the applicant and withheld some records and information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information and records it withheld under s. 14 and required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 13(1).
An applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for access to all documents sent to or received by a specific TRU employee that mention the applicant. TRU disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 19(1)(a) (disclosure harmful to individual safety) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU is required to withhold almost all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that TRU was not required or permitted to withhold a small amount of information under any FIPPA exception to disclosure and required TRU to provide this information to the applicant. Section 19(1)(a) was not at issue with respect to any information that the adjudicator required TRU to provide to the applicant.
An applicant requested access to all records relating to his child from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). The Ministry refused to disclose information on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the child in accordance with s. 5(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 3(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation (Regulation), and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that the applicant was authorized to make the request on behalf of the child and that the Ministry was required to refuse access to some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
The applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (the University) for access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to all communications mentioning him that were sent to or received by a named individual. The University provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the University was authorized to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and required to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the University to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
The executor of a deceased person’s estate requested the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) provide copies of the deceased’s hospital and nursing home records. VIHA withheld some personal information of third parties on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the third parties’ personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed the decision of VIHA to withhold the information.
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 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 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 records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about his interactions with outpatient services. The Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information from them under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires Island Health to refuse to disclose the information.
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.
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.
The applicant requested all minutes of City Council and committee meetings, emails, and social media messages that included any variation of her name from the City of Pitt Meadows (the City). The City disclosed the records but withheld some information under ss. (13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 14 in full, and its decision under ss. 22(1) in part, and ordered the City to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1) to the applicant.
An applicant requested that the Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to her deceased mother’s (the deceased) medical records. Fraser Health refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make the request on behalf of the deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation (Regulation). Fraser Health also refused the applicant access to the records under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased. The adjudicator further found that disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
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).
An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related
to an external investigation of the University’s treatment of the applicant. The University
disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator
determined that the University was authorized to withhold all the information withheld
under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some information withheld under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered the University to disclose that 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.
The applicant asked the Board of Education of School District No. 43 (School District) to provide him with access to information about his child’s educational supports and assistance. The School District disclosed responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the School District was authorized to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) and was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the School District to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to the applicant.
An applicant requested records created pursuant to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which requires crown counsel to report adverse judicial comments on a peace officer’s testimony. The Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) withheld information in two of the responsive records under s. 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry also decided that the name of the involved police officer could be disclosed, and notified the police officer’s employer, who requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The applicant and another party were also invited to participate in the inquiry.
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.
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.
An applicant requested access to a record relating to the investigation of a professional practice complaint he filed against a nurse. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Coastal Health) withheld the entire responsive record under ss. 19 (harm to individual or public safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found Coastal Health properly withheld the record.
An applicant requested from the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) a copy of a police report concerning him in its possession. VIHA withheld portions of the report under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that ss. 22(1) applied to all of the information at issue and required VIHA to refuse to disclose it.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
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).
An applicant requested access to all records held by the Ministry naming two individuals and created within a specific date range. The Ministry refused access to some information in the responsive records under several exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA but only s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) was in issue during the inquiry. The adjudicator confirmed that the Ministry correctly applied s. 22 to most of the information in dispute but ordered the Ministry to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
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 applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) for records relating to herself and a particular College complaint investigation file. The College provided partial access, withholding information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14. The adjudicator also determined that the College is required or authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information that the College withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
An applicant requested access to records relating to his employment held by the Public Service Agency (PSA). PSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in them under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found PSA was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information withheld under s. 13 (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator also found PSA was required to refuse the applicant access to some, but not all, of the information withheld under s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered PSA to disclose the remainder to the applicant.
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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to certain records. FHA disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information in them. The applicant requested a review of this decision. FHA also notified a third party that it planned to disclose some records (Audit Reports) to the applicant. The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision. The adjudicator determined that FHA was not required to refuse to disclose the Audit Reports under s. 21(1) of FIPPA, but that it was required to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of Victoria (University) for access to records containing information about the University's response to an allegation that the applicant breached the University's Sexualized Violence Prevention and Response Policy. The University withheld the majority of information in the records citing s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal information) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the University was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the University to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
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 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 applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the application and appointment of a specific BC Supreme Court master. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under multiple exceptions to access. In some cases, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information in the responsive records under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. Given their finding on s. 22(1), the adjudicator did not need to consider whether s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) also applied to the same information. The Ministry was ordered to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under FIPPA. The Ministry also argued, and the adjudicator confirmed, that some of the responsive records fell outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(3)(c); therefore, the applicant had no right to access those records under FIPPA.
The applicant requested information from the City of Vancouver related to the rezoning of the property surrounding Crofton Manor, a senior’s care facility in the City. The City disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under s. 21 in part, and its decision under s. 22 in full, and ordered the City to disclose some information incorrectly withheld under s. 21 to the applicant.
An applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report prepared for the City of Revelstoke (City). The investigation report was partially about the applicant. The City provided the applicant with a copy of the report, but withheld some information in it under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 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 City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
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 requested records relating to two courses offered at Simon Fraser University (SFU). SFU responded providing access to records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that SFU had correctly applied s. 22(1) to the personal information at issue, but that it had incorrectly applied it to information that was not personal information. The adjudicator ordered SFU to disclose the information that was not personal information.
An applicant requested the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) give him access to his registrant file. The College refused access to some of the records and parts of records under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and pursuant to s. 26.2 of the Health Professions Act (HPA). The adjudicator finds that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 26.2 of the HPA apply to most of the information in dispute. The adjudicator orders the College to give the applicant access to the information to which those provisions do not apply.
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.
An employee made two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA). One was for a report of an investigation into a respectful workplace complaint and associated records. The other was for her personal information relating to job competitions. VIHA withheld some of the information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy of a third party). The adjudicator found that VIHA had correctly applied s. 13(1) to some of the information. The adjudicator ordered VIHA to disclose the rest of the information to which it applied s. 13(1). The adjudicator confirmed VIHA’s decision to apply s. 22(1).
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).
The applicant requested all of the records relating to her treatment at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital. The Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 22(1)
(unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information in
dispute but ordered Interior Health to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
An applicant requested access to records, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the City of North Vancouver (City). The City provided the applicant with access to records but withheld some parts of the records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information under s. 13(1) and found that the City was required to refuse the applicant access to some but not all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the remainder to the applicant.
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry). The Ministry withheld some information under s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) and s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute under those exceptions. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the information in dispute considered under that exception.
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 requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). In response, the Ministry provided 8,936 pages of responsive records, withholding some information under a number of different exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under ss. 13(1), and 14 and some of the information under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) and 18(a). The Ministry was required to withhold some information in dispute under ss. 12(1) and 22(1). However, the Ministry was required to disclose some of the information it withheld under ss. 12(1), 16(1)(a)(iii), 18(a) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 16(1)(c) did not apply to the information considered under that section. The Ministry also withheld some information under common law settlement privilege, but did not provide the records in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to produce the records for the purpose of adjudicating settlement privilege. The applicant also complained that the Ministry did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for text messages and deleted emails.
The applicants made separate requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) for access to records containing information about them relating to their operation of a foster home. The Ministry withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under ss. 15(1)(d) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The Ministry also decided that some records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(c). The adjudicator determined that some of the disputed records are beyond the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c). Regarding the other records, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold most, but not all, of the disputed information under s. 22(1) and that, given this finding, it is not necessary to also consider s. 15(1)(d).
A journalist requested records related to the BCCS’s investigation into the death of a third party. The BCCS initially withheld all of the records under s. 64(1) of the Coroners Act. The BCCS then disclosed the records but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of 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 ordered the BCCS to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under s. 22(1).
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.
The applicant requested access to her own personal information from the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC) relating to a complaint that she had made against a member of the CPABC. The CPABC
disclosed some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 15 (harm to law enforcement) and
22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (FIPPA). The CPABC also withheld all of the information under s. 69 of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act (CPAA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(7) of
FIPPA overrides s. 69 of the CPAA. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(3), 13(1) and 15 of FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all
of the information. The adjudicator ordered the CPABC to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to an agreement between the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) and two named individuals, along with other related documents. The Ministry withheld the entire agreement on the basis it was
protected by settlement privilege, but provided the applicant with partial access to other records by withholding information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the agreement on the basis of settlement privilege, but that it was required to withhold the agreement under s. 22(1). The adjudicator also found the Ministry was required to withhold most of the remaining information at issue under s. 22(1). The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
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 applicant requested copies of records relating to a call to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) about him, including an audio recording of the call. The VPD disclosed records, including a transcript of the audio recording, but withheld some information under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that the VPD had correctly applied s. 22 and ordered it to withhold the information.
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. 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(1).
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 made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a cabinet briefing note and candidate profile and declaration for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive record, 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 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 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 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 requested information about short-term rental accommodation
and Airbnb in the City of Vancouver. The City refused access to the requested
information under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 19(1) (harm to individual safety), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to a small amount of the
information under ss. 15(1)(f), 19(1)(a) and 21(1). However, none of the exceptions applied to the rest of the disputed information and the City was ordered to disclose it to the applicant.
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 from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) records containing their personal information. VicPD 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 VicPD had correctly applied the exceptions to disclosure and confirmed its decision to withhold the information at issue.
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.
The applicant requested the full names of the members of a community panel the City of Vancouver (City) convened to make a recommendation about a new
arterial road. The City decided to release all the names of the panelists, despite the objections of one panelist (the Panelist). The Panelist requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold their name. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires the City to withhold the Panelist’s name.
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 a variety of information from Community Living
British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld
other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA).
This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to
ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client
privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no
disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken
together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or
required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.
The applicant made requests under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Citizens’
Services (Ministries) for access to records containing any and all allegations made by a
named individual against the applicant, either in writing or in an audio recording. The
Ministries released the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some records
and information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal
privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested a review of the Ministries’ decisions. The
adjudicator concluded that the Ministries were required to refuse to disclose some of the
disputed information under s. 22(1), including most of two audio recordings, but were
required to disclose the balance of the disputed information to the applicant.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the 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.
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 applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) file on its investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. The VPD disclosed some of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 15 (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to the information in dispute and ordered the VPD to refuse the applicant access to it. It was not necessary to consider s. 15.
The applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investigation that led to the well known 2012 Ministry employee firings. The Ministry provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This order considers ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 applied, and that s. 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that she found s. 22 did not apply to.
An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal information. The public body refused access to information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that ss. 13,14 and 22 applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 17 did not. The adjudicator ordered the public body to disclose a small amount of information to the applicant.
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.
The applicant requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
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 made a request to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to records relating to an investigation the FHA conducted under the Adult Guardianship Act. The FHA withheld the information in dispute under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the FHA was not authorized to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 14 and that the FHA was required to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 22.
A physician requested copies of all information the Medical Services Commission (MSC) held about him. The MSC disclosed the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The physician asked that an inquiry beheld to determine if s. 22(1) applies to the patients’ names and Personal Health Numbers (PHNs) in the records. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to patients’ names and PHNs.
A professor made two requests for records related to an investigation and to certain communications about him. The University of Victoria gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University of Victoria’s decision to refuse the applicant access under ss. 14 and 22.
The applicant requested documents from BC Hydro relating to contractors who bid for a construction project. BC Hydro withheld some information from two pages under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed BC Hydro’s decision.
A professor requested information about two University investigations into his work conduct. The University gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s decision regarding s. 14. The s. 13(1) and s. 22(1) decisions were confirmed in part. The University was ordered to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
An applicant requested 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.
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.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) to records related to her and her employment for a specified time period. The Ministry withheld information in the records on the basis ss. 13(1), 15(1)(g) and/or s. 22(1) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply to the records since the information did not qualify as advice or recommendations, but the Ministry was authorized to withhold some information under s. 15(1)(g) as it was related to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The adjudicator also determined that disclosing some of the information in dispute would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy and the Ministry was required to withhold it under s. 22(1). Lastly, the adjudicator found the Ministry did not fulfill its obligations under s. 22(5) to provide the applicant with a summary of personal information supplied in confidence about the applicant in a particular record and ordered it to do so.
An employee requested his personnel file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The City of Surrey (City) disclosed many records but also withheld information related to its investigation of his off-duty conduct under several exceptions in FIPPA: ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations); 15(1) (harm to law enforcement); 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations); 17(1) (harm to public body?s financial or economic interests); 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety); and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 16(1)(b) applied to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that ss. 15(1)(a) and (d), 17(1), 19(1)(a) and (b) and 22(1) did not apply to the remaining withheld information and ordered that the City disclose this information to the employee.
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 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.
The applicant requested records relating to a complaint that he made about a lawyer employed by the Law Society. The Law Society withheld some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed that the Law Society is authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 14 and required, in part, to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 22.
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.
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.
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested records related to communications strategies regarding the Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI). The University of British Columbia (UBC) disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed UBC’s decision regarding s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered UBC to disclose other information to which s. 22(1) does not apply.
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 access to records about the preparation of affidavits for a court action. The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA, to either confirm or deny the existence of the records on the grounds that disclosure of their existence would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed that the LSBC was authorized to rely on s. 8(2)(b).
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.
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
The applicant 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, 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.
The applicant asked for any records with his name on them. The City disclosed some records, withholding information under ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence) and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The Adjudicator found that all three exceptions applied.
The applicant asked Langara College for grades assigned to him by classmates in a business course, as well as those that his classmates assigned to each other. The College refused access on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the applicant’s classmates under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The Adjudicator agreed, but found that the College was required to give the applicant a summary of his grades in a manner that would not identify his classmates.
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.
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 the BC Coroners Service file on its investigation
into the death of a named individual. The Coroners Service disclosed some records but denied access to others under ss. 64(1)(a) and 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act and s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 64(1)(a) or 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act apply to most of the records. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 of FIPPA applies to a number
of records, with the exception of three records that were provided to the Coroners Service by the applicant. The adjudicator ordered the Coroners Service to disclose those three records to the applicant.
The applicant requested information regarding the Civil Forfeiture Office. The Ministry withheld the names of the Civil Forfeiture Office’s employees because it believed that disclosure would endanger their lives or physical safety (s. 15(1)(f)) and disclosure could reasonably be expected to threaten their safety or mental or physical health (s.19(1)(a)). The adjudicator found that neither s. 15(1)(f) nor s. 19(1)(a) authorized refusing to disclose the names of the employees. The Ministry also withheld the résumé of the Civil Forfeiture Office’s former director because it believed that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy (s. 22). The adjudicator found that the former director’s résumé must be withheld under s. 22.
The applicant made two separate requests for records. The first request was for a copy of a report of an organizational review of the College. The adjudicator found that the College was not justified in withholding information from the report under ss. 12(3)(b) and 13(1) of FIPPA. However, with two small exceptions, the adjudicator found that disclosure of the personal information contained in the report would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA and it may not be disclosed. The applicant’s second request was for records related to the issue of assessing substantially equivalent qualifications of College registrants, and the adjudicator found that the refusal to disclose them was authorized under s. 13(1) of FIPPA.
A criminology professor requested decisions of the College on physicians disciplined for sexually inappropriate behaviour. The College disclosed a copy of an Agreement in which a physician admitted he had inappropriately hugged and kissed a patient and agreed to the College imposing discipline on him. The College previously made a separate public disclosure of the identity of the physician, a description of the charge against him, and the details of the discipline it imposed. The College withheld, under s. 22(1) of FIPPA, all information identifying the complainant and the physician, as well as the medical, educational and employment history of the physician. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the medical information of the complainant and the medical, educational and employment history of the physician, but not to the identity of the physician, the details of the charge or the terms of the discipline it imposed. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose this information in the Agreement.
A bus driver requested copies of complaints that students made against him regarding his behaviour when transporting them on a school trip. The School District provided him with one record in its entirety and another with all of the information, except for the names of the students, which it withheld under s. 22. The bus driver requested a review in order to obtain access to the names of the students and their contact information. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) of FIPPA applied to the names of the students, because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the students’ personal privacy.
A journalist requested correspondence between BCLC and a director of a gaming company, who was also a former Chair of the Board of Directors of BCLC. BCLC identified email correspondence between the CEO of BCLC, as he then was, and the director to be responsive to the request and decided to disclose the records to the journalist. BCLC provided notice of the request to the director. The director requested a review on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA and would harm the interests of one of his businesses under s. 21. Section 22 applies only to the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties. The journalist argues that s. 25 of FIPPA requires disclosure of the correspondence as being in the public interest. Section 25 does not apply to any of the information. Section 21 does not apply to any of the information. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to withhold the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties and disclose the remainder of the information.
The applicant requested a police report from the Abbotsford Police which disclosed the report in severed form. The APB was found to have severed information correctly under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 19(1).
A nurse requested a copy of a job reference about her that her employer, a physician, had sent to VIHA. VIHA refused access to the record in its entirety under s. 22(2)(f), saying the physician had supplied the reference in confidence. VIHA did not establish that the physician supplied the reference in confidence. It also did not discharge its burden of proving that the applicant was not entitled to have access to her own personal information. VIHA is ordered to disclose the entire record.
A physician whose employment and hospital privileges at the CWHC are presently suspended requested minutes of the meetings of a medical departmental staff committee of the CWHC. The PHSA responded by providing the applicant with records while withholding information under ss. 12(1), 13, 17 and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. The PHSA subsequently ceased to rely on ss. 13 and 17. Section 51 of the Evidence Act applies to some but not all passages. PHSA ordered to process this latter information under FIPPA. Section 22 of FIPPA applies to the medical information of patients and staff. It also applies to the employment history of staff and prospective staff, including evaluations of work, announcement of retirements and new hiring, the passing of exams and immigration issues. Section 22 does not apply to the professional opinions that identifiable physicians expressed relating to the operation of the CWHC and the PHSA is ordered to disclose this information.
An applicant requested details of a settlement that a former employee received from the City. The City withheld the settlement agreement in its entirety under s. 22, on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the former employee’s personal privacy. The applicant subsequently narrowed the request to the amount of money the City paid the former employee, as provided in the settlement agreement. Section 22 does not apply to the information withheld, because disclosure is desirable for public scrutiny. The City is ordered to disclose the financial amount paid to the former employee.
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested records of WorkSafeBC’s investigation into the incident. WorkSafeBC disclosed most of the information, except the identifying information of several individuals. Section 22 found not to apply to most of the withheld information and WorkSafeBC ordered to disclose it.
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested the records of the NWPB investigation into the incident. NWPB disclosed much of the information. Section 22(1) found not to apply to most of the information withheld under that exception and NWPB ordered to disclose it, subject to reconsideration of s. 15(1)g). Third parties found not to be “confidential sources of law enforcement information” and s. 15(1)(d) therefore does not apply. Some information relates to or was used in the “exercise of prosecutorial discretion”. However New Westminster Police Board found not to have exercised discretion properly in applying s.15(1)(g) and is ordered to reconsider its decision.
Adjudicator granted BC Housing’s request that this matter not proceed to inquiry.
The applicant requested records compiled under s. 86 of the Gaming Control Act reporting suspected or actual illegal activities in registered gaming establishments and casinos. This Order follows Order F08-03 wherein the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the records under s. 15 or required to withhold them under s. 21 but was required withhold some personal information under s. 22. Following a request by the third parties, Order F08-07 was issued granting all parties the opportunity to make further argument concerning whether the names of casino employees which appear in the s. 86 reports should be withheld under s. 22. The third parties argued that the names of their employees, including the writers of the s. 86 reports, should not be disclosed. The Ministry must disclose the names of the s. 86 report writers and other employees acting in the course of their employment responsibilities. However, the Ministry is required to withhold the names of employees who are identified in the reports as being threatened or assaulted, who were subject to investigation or who were witnesses to an incident.
A student requested records relating to an investigation that resulted in the College terminating her enrolment in her educational program. The College withheld all records in their entirety under s. 22(1). Section 22(1) does not apply to information solely about the applicant or information of which she was already aware from participating in the conversations and actions documented and from receiving other documentation from the College. Section 22(1) applies to some information solely about third parties and of which the applicant was not already aware.
A doctor sought records relating to an harassment investigation about him that resulted in the suspension of his hospital privileges. The PHSA argued solicitor-client privilege applied to most of the information and therefore withheld it. Disclosing the remainder, the PHSA contended, would result in the unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy, contrary to s. 22. Legal professional privilege applied to those records for which s. 14 was asserted, and the PHSA was required to withhold the balance of the disputed information under s. 22 of FIPPA.
The VCHA investigated abuse allegations concerning an elderly woman. Four family members related to the elderly woman requested records from the VCHA about themselves because of concerns they were the subject of these allegations. In considering all of the relevant circumstances, the VCHA is required to withhold the information in dispute under s. 22 of FIPPA. Though the Adult Guardianship Act did not trump FIPPA, VCHA’s obligations under that Act were relevant to determining that the disputed records were provided in confidence.
The applicant requested access to electronic copies of 70 fields of Foundation Skills Assessment student summary data for a certain period, in order to carry out statistical research on the data. The Ministry refused access under s. 22. In his inquiry submission, the applicant offered to reduce the scope of his request to a few fields. The Ministry provided three options for disclosure of the narrower set of data, with Personal Education Numbers (PENs) encrypted, which in its view would not unreasonably invade individual student privacy. Ministry is ordered to disclose data in accordance with the option involving disclosure of the narrowed data with PENs encrypted and populations or cells of fewer than five students suppressed.
The applicant requested salary and severance information concerning SkyTrain employees for the years 2002 to 2005. Section 22(4)(e) does not apply to the requested information in this case. However, TransLink, as the public body responsible for the information, is required to disclose it following consideration of all relevant factors under s. 22, including the need for public scrutiny.
Applicant requested access to records from an investigation into human rights complaints against him. The PHSA disclosed some records and withheld others under s. 3(1)(b) and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. It also took the position that some pages were not in its custody or control. Section 3(1)(b) found not to apply and PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a decision on entitlement to access respecting those pages. Section 51 of the Evidence Act found to apply to other pages. PHSA found to have custody and control of certain pages and ordered to provide applicant with a decision on access regarding those pages. Section 22 found to apply to some information and not to other information. PHSA ordered to provide the applicant with access to information to which s. 22 was found not to apply.
The applicant requested access to records from the APD which disclosed them with some information severed under s. 22. APD is found to have applied s. 22 properly to some information and ordered to disclose other information to which s. 22 does not apply, as it is the applicant’s own personal information and information about APD employees in a work context.
The applicant requested records from a government program that nominates foreign workers for accelerated immigration. The Ministry disclosed the application forms, position descriptions, required qualifications and job offer letters but withheld some information in those records under s. 21 and s. 22. The test for s. 21 was not met. Some information must be withheld under s. 22 to prevent unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy. Some of the information was not “personal information” and must be disclosed.
The applicant, a former employee of BC Hydro, requested records relating to himself, a third party and a private company the two had previously shared an interest in. BC Hydro released some records but withheld some in whole or part. BC Hydro was required to disclose some of the records. BC Hydro was also authorized to withhold some of the records under ss. 13(1) and 14 and was required to withhold others under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.
Parents requested access to personal information about themselves and their minor child. School District disclosed most of the requested records, withholding some information under ss. 21 and 22. School District ordered to disclose a few phrases of personal information of one applicant as s. 22 does not apply to it. Section 21 is found not to apply to five pages of records and School District ordered to disclose portions from these pages which are the applicants’ personal information.
The applicant requested a report of an investigation into an incident involving trees which were mistakenly cut down by UBC employees. UBC released the report, but withheld the names and positions of the employees who were involved in the incident and those who were interviewed in the investigation. UBC is required by s. 22 of FIPPA to withhold the names of the employees
Applicant requested access to a document the third party created to describe his workplace interactions with the applicant. Section 22 found to apply to the third party’s personal information in the record and UVic is required to withhold it. It is not reasonable to sever the record as the personal information of applicant and third party is intertwined. This is not an appropriate case to summarize the record.
The applicant news agency requested access to the transcript and audio tape of 911 calls placed by a named individual, as well as a copy of police reports relating to those calls. Section 25(1) does not require disclosure in the public interest. The VPD is not authorized to withhold the information under s. 15(1)(c), but is required to withhold it under s. 22.
Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56.
The applicant requested access to records related to his noise complaint about his neighbour. The District refused the applicant full or partial access to the records on the basis of ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), and 22(1) of FIPPA. The District is authorized by s. 13(1) of FIPPA to refuse the applicant access to a memorandum containing advice and recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The District is not authorized by s. 12(3)(b) to refuse the applicant access to the minutes of an in camera meeting because the evidence does not establish that the meeting was properly held in camera. The District is required to refuse the applicant access to information in the remaining records which is strictly that of the third party, but must not refuse access to information which is not personal information or is the applicant’s own personal information.
The applicant requested a copy of the report evaluating a research proposal that he submitted for funding through Forestry Innovation Investment. The Ministry provided the applicant with the requested record, which included comments made by the individuals who had reviewed the proposal, but severed the names of the reviewers under s. 22 of FIPPA. The Ministry also later claimed that s. 17 applied and authorized it to sever the names of the reviewers. The statutory presumption under s. 22(3) does not apply in this case. However, there are relevant factors under s. 22(2) that weigh against disclosure of the reviewers’ names and s. 22(1) does apply. Since the Ministry is required by s. 22(1) to sever the names of the reviewers, s. 17 need not be considered.
Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56.
Applicant requested records in hands of a named PHSA employee. The PHSA withheld many records on the grounds they are protected by solicitor-client privilege and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. Most records are protected by s. 14 and some information is also protected by s. 22. Small amounts of information are not protected by either exception and must be disclosed.
Applicants requested access to information about themselves in Ministry records. The Ministry withheld some information under s. 77 of the CFCSA. Some information in the only record remaining in dispute falls under s. 77 and must be withheld.
The applicant requested records of four specified individuals. The PHSA disclosed records and applied ss. 14 and 22 to other records and information. It also said that one individual was not its employee and another had no responsive records. The PHSA is found to have correctly withheld information and records under ss. 14 and 22.
Applicant requested records from files of two human rights investigators. VCHA disclosed a number of records and withheld and severed others under ss. 14 and 22 of the Act. VCHA found to have applied s. 14 correctly. VCHA found to have applied s. 22 correctly to some information and records but not to others. VCHA ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply.
Applicant requested various records relating to the SPCA, including a report on the care of animals, which the City withheld under s. 22. Personal information can reasonably be severed from the report and withheld. Remaining information found not to be personal information under s. 22. City ordered to disclose record with personal information severed.
The applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report. The public body provided the majority of the report, severing four lines from the 27 pages under s. 22. The severed information was submitted in confidence to the public body and its disclosure would unfairly expose third parties to harm. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the severed information.
Union requested name(s) of person(s) who requested information on leave for union business by members of the union executive. School District denied access under s. 22. Section 22 applies to the name of the third party.
Firefighters’ union requested copy of consultant’s report on labour relations within City fire and rescue service. City disclosed report with portions severed under ss. 17 and 22. Section 17 does not apply. Section 22 applies to some but not all information. City ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply
The applicant sought access to records of a police investigation into a probable homicide. Although the death occurred a number of years ago, the investigation is ongoing and s. 15 authorizes the APD to withhold the information it withheld. Section 16 also authorizes, and s. 22 requires, the APD to withhold information. The APD’s decision is upheld
Applicant requested access to records related to himself in the public body’s security and infection control areas. PHSA correctly refused access to information under s. 14 and for the most part under s. 22. PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a few items of information withheld under s. 22 and with summary under s. 22(5). A few pages are not in PHSA’s custody or control. Other pages are in PHSA’s control and it is ordered to process them under the Act.
Applicant requested records related to his interactions with a number of named doctors at the PHSA. The PHSA withheld some information under ss. 14 and 22. Applicant objected to decision to withhold information and also questioned the completeness of the PHSA’s response. The PHSA applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases s. 22. The PHSA is ordered to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22. The PHSA did not show that it complied with s. 6(1) in its response and is ordered to do so.
Applicant requested complaint record provided by third party to BC Hydro. Third party objected to its disclosure, although he later agreed to disclosure of most of record. Section 22 applies to some but not all of remaining withheld information
The applicant requested records detailing the operations of ICBC’s Glass Express program, including records relating to suspensions of glass vendors’ rights under the program. ICBC properly applied ss. 14 and 22(1) and, in some places, s. 13(1). Some information withheld under s. 13(1) is ordered disclosed. Information withheld under s. 17(1) is ordered disclosed.
Applicant requested access to two reports of investigations into complaints the applicant made about her children’s teacher and about bullying of her children by other students. Section 22 requires the School District to refuse to disclose some, but not all, personal information in the reports. Section 21 is not applicable
Applicant requested records related to himself. PHSA disclosed large number of records and withheld others under ss. 12(3), 13(1), 14 and 22. Applicant disputed decision to withhold information and also complained about delay in PHSA’s response and records search. PHSA found to have applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases also ss. 13(1) and 22. PHSA found not to have complied with its duties under s. 6(1) and ordered to search again.
Applicant requested records related to himself, his children and his ex-wife. Ministry withheld some information and said applicant had no right of access to records related to his children and ex-wife. Ministry correctly applied s. 77 CFCSA, with some minor exceptions and found to have exercised due diligence in searching for responsive records.
Applicant requested records related to his employment and promotion within UBC. UBC disclosed many records, withheld other records and information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22 and said other records were not relevant to the request. Applicant questioned search adequacy and objected to withholding of information. UBC applied s. 14 properly and, with some exceptions, also ss. 13(1) and 22. UBC searched adequately for responsive records, with one minor exception, for which it was ordered to search again. UBC ordered to disclose some information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22 and to provide a response on some records found to be relevant to request.
Section 21(1) does not require the Ministry to refuse access to rate information in three contracts for computer consulting services, proposals preceding the contracts or a score sheet comparing proposals. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to refuse to disclose some personal information in the proposals preceding the contracts.
Applicant requested review of School District’s decision under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain records. Third-party teacher requested review of School District’s decision to disclose investigator’s report and hearing records in severed form. School District found to have applied s. 8(2)(b) properly and to have correctly decided to sever and disclose report and hearing records.
Parents requested access to two investigation reports regarding a third-party teacher. Teacher requested a review of the School District’s decision to disclose reports in severed form. School District found to have correctly decided to disclose severed reports.
The City is required to withhold some third-party personal information in records of
complaints to the City about the applicants’ property. The City is required to withhold telephone
numbers, fax numbers, e-mail addresses, employment information and personal opinions or
observations not related to the applicants, but must disclose the rest to the applicants.
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry provided records to the
applicant but severed some information and withheld other records. Section 22 requires the
Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal information. Ministry found to have applied
s. 22 properly to the severed and withheld records and to have complied with s. 6(1) duty in
searching for records.
Applicant requested records related to her academic appeal. UBC provided records,
withholding other records and information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13(1), 14 and 22. UBC found to have
applied ss. 3(1)(b), and 14 properly and, with one exception, s. 22 as well. UBC ordered to
disclose some personal information related to applicant. Section 13(1) found not to apply in all
cases and UBC ordered to disclose draft letters.
The applicant requested records about herself and her daughter. Under ss. 21 and 22,
the VSB withheld some information and records. The VSB is found to have applied s. 22
properly and is ordered to prepare a s. 22(5) summary.
Applicant, a teacher employed by the public body, requested copies of letters about
applicant written by parents. Public body correctly released the substance of third parties’ letters
to the applicant but properly refused under s. 22 to disclose their identifying information.
However, the public body failed to respond in the time permitted by the Act.
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry severed some information.
Applicant requested review of response, saying certain records missing. Ministry found to
have complied with s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and to have applied ss. 13(1) and 22
properly to some information.
The applicant sought access to various Law Society records related to complaints he
had made about various lawyers. Order 02-01 and Order No. 260-1998 addressed many of the
records in dispute here and issue estoppel is found to apply to information dealt with in those
decisions. In the case of some but not all of the information in other records, the Law Society is
authorized to refuse to disclose information subject to s. 14 and is required to refuse to disclose
third-party personal information protected by s. 22.
The applicant complained to the College about the conduct of a College member.
The College disclosed 140 records from its complaint file, but refused to disclose, in their
entirety, 19 records. The College has failed to establish that s. 3(1)(b), s. 12(3)(b) or s. 15(2)(b)
apply. It is authorized to refuse disclosure of some information under ss. 13(1) and 14 and is
required to refuse disclosure by s. 22(3)(d) and (g). Section 22(1) does not require the College to
refuse the applicant access to her own personal information.
Applicant requested a copy of any information in the custody or control of the PGT
concerning herself, including allegations made against her with respect to her mother. The PGT
provided some information to the applicant but denied access to a letter and other information it
received in confidence from a third party. The PGT was required to withhold the records, as
disclosure would reveal the identity of the third party. However, because some of the information
supplied in confidence was personal information about the applicant, the PGT is ordered to
comply with its s. 22(5) duty to provide the applicant with a summary of her own personal
information
The applicant, a former Ministry employee, requested records related to an
investigation into his conduct. The Ministry provided severed copies of the investigation report
and severed copies of interview transcripts, but said it could not provide copies of the audiotapes
of those interviews. Section 22 requires the Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal
information. The Ministry has not complied with its duty under ss. 4(2) and 9(2) regarding
copies of the audiotapes or their severing and must provide the applicant with copies of the
audiotapes, severed as appropriate
The applicant requested records relating both to herself and to her child, of whom she
no longer has legal care following apprehension of the child and subsequent court orders.
Records had previously been disclosed to the applicant’s various legal counsel three times. The
public body is ordered to make additional disclosure to applicant, based on uncertainty of
evidence regarding previous disclosures. Sections 76 and 77 of the Child, Family and
Community Service Act found to have been properly applied to the information severed or
withheld by the public body.
Through her legal counsel, the applicant made a request to the public body for
records regarding a complaint she had made respecting mental health services she received from
the public body. The public body’s limited severing of personal information from a consultant’s
report that had been prepared in response to the complaint is upheld under s. 22. The public body
also discharged its duty to the applicant to conduct an adequate search for records.
The applicant in this case is the daughter of a woman whose attempt to revisit
a mediated settlement of her previous access request to SFU was dealt with in Order 01-16. In
Order 01-16, it was held that SFU need not process the woman’s new access request. The evidence
establishes that the daughter’s access request, made 10 days after Order 01-16 was issued, was
made on her mother’s behalf, as an attempt to circumvent Order 01-16. This is an abuse of process
and will not be allowed. The principle of res judicata also applies. SFU’s decision on the merits
of the daughter’s access request, as an arm’s-length applicant, is upheld.
Applicant requested records related to his employment with the AIBC and to records
related to two other employees. The AIBC withheld several records under ss. 14, 17 and 22. Section 14 found to apply to one record. Section 17 found not to apply. Section 22(4)(e) found to apply to the employees’ employment contracts, job descriptions, salary and benefit information, which is ordered disclosed. Sections 22(1) and 22(3)(d) and (g) found to apply to some withheld
information.
The applicant sought her deceased son’s medical records. The applicant is the nearest relative of the deceased son within the meaning of s. 3(c) of the FOI Regulation, but in the circumstances of this case is not acting on his behalf under that section. Assessing her request as a third party, the Commission has correctly refused access to the son’s personal information under s. 22(1)
Applicants made a request for letters of reference written by two third parties to a SFU search committee. SFU determined that parts of the letters could be released, including portions that would identify the third party writers. SFU gave the third parties notice of this decision. The third parties requested a review of that decision. The third parties’ personal information is subject to s. 22(3)(h) of the Act and SFU is required to withhold any information that would identify the authors of the letters.
Applicant requested copies of reports of outside professional activities of named faculty members. UBC provided severed copies, withholding under ss. 22(1) and 22(3)(d) information on their outside professional activities, use of UBC resources, dates and time spent. UBC found to have applied s. 22 properly to information on outside professional activities, dates and time spent. Section 22 found not to apply to information on any use of UBC resources.
Applicant requested, on behalf of client, names and addresses of 17 heirs at law to an estate. PGT found to have properly refused access under s. 22.
The applicant sought access to accounts of third party’s finances provided to the PGT respecting the deceased third party’s estate. The PGT denied access under s. 22(3)(f). The applicant is not entitled to exercise the third party’s rights under s. 3(b) or (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation. Disclosure is not necessary for the purpose of subjecting the PGT to public scrutiny. Because the third party’s death occurred not long before the applicant made her request, death does not diminish his privacy rights in this case. The PGT withheld the information properly under s. 22.
The applicants obtained an arbitrator’s award, under the Residential Tenancy Act, for rent and utilities owed by their former tenant. They asked the Ministry for her new address to collect the money owed under the award, but the Ministry refused under s. 22(1). None of the s. 22(3) presumed unreasonable invasions of personal privacy applies here. It is relevant that the address was supplied in confidence to the arbitrator, but it is also relevant to a fair determination of the applicants’ legal rights. The Ministry is not required to refuse access, there being no unreasonable invasion of privacy in this case.
The applicant sought access to the names of all individuals who had, in calendar 2000, made complaints to the Law Society about a lawyer’s conduct. The Law Society is not required to disclose this third-party personal information under s. 25(1) and is required to refuse disclosure under s. 22.
The applicant requested the .name of an individual who had approached police about distributing posters about the applicant in the community. Police refused access to third party’s name, first under s. 19(1)(a) and later also under s. 22. Section 19(1)(a) found not to apply, but police found to have withheld name correctly under s. 22.
The applicant requested copies of communications about herself, dating from 1989, that the School District had in its custody. The School District properly refused access on the basis that it had received the applicant’s personal information, and third-party personal information, in confidence and disclosure would unreasonably invade third-party personal privacy. The applicant has not shown that the information is relevant to fair determination of her rights or that other relevant circumstances favour disclosure. As it is not possible to sever or summarize the records without disclosing third-party personal information and unreasonably invading third-party personal privacy, the School District must withhold the entire communications.
Applicants sought copies of any letters written to the City by an individual about whom the applicants had made a noise complaint. The City refused access to any portion of the two responsive letters, citing ss. 22(1), 22(2)(f), 22(3)(b) and 22(3)(h). The City later reconsidered its decision at the applicants’ request, but continued to deny access, relying further on ss. 15(1)(a), (f) and 15(2)(b) of the Act. The City also later raised s. 19(1). The City is required to withhold the telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of the letters’ author, but must disclose the rest of the letters to the applicants. None of the exceptions relied on by the City authorizes or requires it to withhold the applicants’ own personal information
As agent for an employer, the CLRA made 30 access requests for initial wage rates, and other financial information, from wage loss claims made by employees of the employer to the WCB. The applications arose out of concerns by employers generally that the WCB had, over a number of years, over-estimated initial wage rates for casual workers. WCB refused to disclose such information, relying on ss. 17 and 22. During the inquiry, the WCB abandoned its reliance on s. 17 and relied only on s. 22. The WCB is not required to refuse disclosure of the wage-related information, as disclosure would not, for a number of reasons, unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the employer’s workers.
Applicant sought access to letter sent by a principal to a coach at her daughter’s school, regarding an incident involving her daughter. NVSD initially refused to disclose any part of the letter but later disclosed some. NVSD is required to withhold coach’s personal information consisting of evaluations of, or opinions about, her actions related to the incident. Other information cannot be withheld, either because it is not anyone’s personal information or because its disclosure would not unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the coach or other individuals.
An auto body shop applied for records in the custody of ICBC. The records consisted of internal e-mails and documents relating to the ongoing relationship between the shop and ICBC. ICBC had denied the shop accreditation, resulting in an appeal and revocation of the shop’s vendor number. ICBC did not succeed completely on its application of ss. 13 and 17 to a vast number of records. ICBC is required to demonstrate the information it withheld under s. 13 was created for the purpose of advising or recommending a specific course of action or range of actions or that it so advises or recommends. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interest from disclosure of specific information. ICBC succeeded on its application of s. 14 to records created for the dominant purpose of preparing for, advising on or conducting litigation. ICBC succeeded in its application of s. 15 to certain investigation records. The Material Damage Specialist Fraud Unit’s activities qualified as law enforcement, certain records were part of an actual investigation and ICBC demonstrated a reasonable expectation of harm. ICBC was able to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that disclosure of certain identities could threaten certain individuals’ safety or mental or physical health. Thus s. 19 was accepted for certain identifying information. ICBC properly applied s. 22 to certain third party personal information, but it was not properly applied to ICBC employee names and identities.
Applicant sought copies of interview notes taken by WCB’s accident investigator, and names of witnesses found in the investigator’s accident investigation report, regarding the workplace death of her husband. Investigation was conducted in 1998. After close of inquiry, WCB abandoned reliance on s. 15(1). WCB continued to withhold personal information of some witnesses under s. 22(1). Witnesses’ identities are known to each other and the witnesses are known to the applicant. WCB not required to withhold personal information under s. 22(1), including factual observations. Section 22(5) not applicable.
Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1), as information does not consist of advice or recommendations. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld under that section, but s. 22(1) applies, in part on the basis of s. 22(3)(a), to some of the same information. Section 22(3)(d) does not apply to information about ministry employees’ work-related actions, so s. 22(1) does not apply to that information. Ministry found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
The applicant requested a copy of confidential investigation reports, and confidential witness statements, respecting two investigations into the applicant’s complaint about a manager’s behaviour. Ministry disclosed the bulk of the investigation reports in both investigations. The withheld witness statements and other information about the manager’s behaviour are part of manager’s employment history under s. 22(3)(d), but are not personal evaluations or personnel evaluations of the manager under s. 22(3)(g). The information, which was submitted by third parties in confidence under s. 22(2)(f), is not relevant to a fair determination of the applicant’s legal rights, so s. 22(2)(c) does not apply. Disclosure would not unfairly expose third parties to harm or unfairly damage their reputations under s. 22(2)(e) or (h). The applicant is not entitled to personal information submitted in confidence for purposes of the investigations, including the manager’s personal information and the witnesses’ personal information. Section 22(5) summary not required in this case.
Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information found in records relating to SFU’s review of a third party’s employment performance or associated records. Public interest disclosure not required. Personal information was not covered by s. 22(4). SFU was required to disclose minor amounts of information that was not covered by s. 22(1).
Applicant, who was formerly investigated by BCSC, sought access to BCSC files about its (now closed) investigation. BCSC was entitled to withhold information that would identify confidential informants and was required to withhold third party personal information compiled as part of its investigation into a possible violation of law.
Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information relating to employment history or educational history as it relates to qualification of third parties for specific employment positions. Applicant also not entitled to personal information of third parties relating to their resignation from employment. Public body found to have fulfilled its duties under s. 6(1).
Applicant sought access to Ministry records about him. Applicant not entitled to see some of the third party personal information withheld from the record in issue. Third party personal information consisted of employment history of third party. Disclosure would be unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy.
Applicant sought access to school counsellor’s notes of interviews with applicant’s children. School board required to refuse disclosure of student’s personal information under s. 22(1) and authorized to refuse to disclose same information on the basis of s. 19 (1).
Applicant sought records relating to him, and a legal opinion about him, in Ministry’s custody. Ministry authorized to withhold information under s. 14. Ministry not authorized to withhold information under s. 17(1), but Ministry required to withhold same information under s. 22.
Applicant sought access to records that contained personal information of a woman whom the applicant had pleaded guilty to having harassed criminally, under the Criminal Code, in 1995. Ministry’s refusal to disclose parts of the records authorized by ss.15(1)(g) and 19(1)(a). Ministry required to refuse to disclose personal information under s. 22(1). Not necessary to deal with Ministry’s reliance on s. 16.
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 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 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 asked Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for access to all documents sent to or received by a specific TRU employee that mention the applicant. TRU disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 19(1)(a) (disclosure harmful to individual safety) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU is required to withhold almost all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that TRU was not required or permitted to withhold a small amount of information under any FIPPA exception to disclosure and required TRU to provide this information to the applicant. Section 19(1)(a) was not at issue with respect to any information that the adjudicator required TRU to provide to the applicant.
The applicant asked Thompson Rivers University (the University) for access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to all communications mentioning him that were sent to or received by a named individual. The University provided the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under a number of FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that the University was authorized to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and required to withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the University to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
The executor of a deceased person’s estate requested the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) provide copies of the deceased’s hospital and nursing home records. VIHA withheld some personal information of third parties on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the third parties’ personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed the decision of VIHA to withhold the information.
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 records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about his interactions with outpatient services. The Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information from them under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires Island Health to refuse to disclose the information.
The applicant requested all minutes of City Council and committee meetings, emails, and social media messages that included any variation of her name from the City of Pitt Meadows (the City). The City disclosed the records but withheld some information under ss. (13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 14 in full, and its decision under ss. 22(1) in part, and ordered the City to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1) to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the BC Securities Commission (BCSC) for records relating to the BCSC’s penalty collection rate, amendments to the Securities Act, and the BCSC’s collection action against the applicant. The BCSC withheld the information in dispute under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(1), 13(1), and 22(1) applied to some, but not all, of the information in dispute and ordered the BCSC to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under those sections. The adjudicator also ordered the BCSC to reconsider its decision to withhold certain information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient evidence that the BCSC considered all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to withhold that information.
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).
An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related
to an external investigation of the University’s treatment of the applicant. The University
disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator
determined that the University was authorized to withhold all the information withheld
under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some information withheld under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered the University to disclose that information.
An applicant requested access to records related to the Metro Vancouver Transit Police’s (MVTP’s) investigation into a dispute in which he was involved. The MVTP disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information and records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the MVTP was required to withhold most of the information under s. 22(1) and ordered the MVTP to disclose the remainder of the information.
The 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).
An applicant requested records created pursuant to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which requires crown counsel to report adverse judicial comments on a peace officer’s testimony. The Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) withheld information in two of the responsive records under s. 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry also decided that the name of the involved police officer could be disclosed, and notified the police officer’s employer, who requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The applicant and another party were also invited to participate in the inquiry.
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.
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.
An applicant requested from the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) a copy of a police report concerning him in its possession. VIHA withheld portions of the report under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that ss. 22(1) applied to all of the information at issue and required VIHA to refuse to disclose it.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
An applicant requested access to all records held by the Ministry naming two individuals and created within a specific date range. The Ministry refused access to some information in the responsive records under several exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA but only s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) was in issue during the inquiry. The adjudicator confirmed that the Ministry correctly applied s. 22 to most of the information in dispute but ordered the Ministry to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to certain records. FHA disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information in them. The applicant requested a review of this decision. FHA also notified a third party that it planned to disclose some records (Audit Reports) to the applicant. The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision. The adjudicator determined that FHA was not required to refuse to disclose the Audit Reports under s. 21(1) of FIPPA, but that it was required to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the implementation of medical assistance in dying practices and procedures by the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). FHA disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information under several exceptions in Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) applied to some, but not all, of the information FHA withheld. The adjudicator ordered FHA to disclose the information which was not covered by ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), or 22(1) of FIPPA.
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.
The applicant made a request to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records about her employment with PHSA. PHSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that PHSA correctly applied ss. 14 and 22(1). As a result, it was unnecessary to consider s. 13.
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 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).
The applicant requested information from the City of Vancouver related to the rezoning of the property surrounding Crofton Manor, a senior’s care facility in the City. The City disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under s. 21 in part, and its decision under s. 22 in full, and ordered the City to disclose some information incorrectly withheld under s. 21 to the applicant.
An applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report prepared for the City of Revelstoke (City). The investigation report was partially about the applicant. The City provided the applicant with a copy of the report, but withheld some information in it under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 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 City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
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 requested records relating to two courses offered at Simon Fraser University (SFU). SFU responded providing access to records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that SFU had correctly applied s. 22(1) to the personal information at issue, but that it had incorrectly applied it to information that was not personal information. The adjudicator ordered SFU to disclose the information that was not personal information.
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 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.
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).
A journalist requested records related to the BCCS’s investigation into the death of a third party. The BCCS initially withheld all of the records under s. 64(1) of the Coroners Act. The BCCS then disclosed the records but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of 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 ordered the BCCS to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested access to her own personal information from the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC) relating to a complaint that she had made against a member of the CPABC. The CPABC
disclosed some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 15 (harm to law enforcement) and
22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (FIPPA). The CPABC also withheld all of the information under s. 69 of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act (CPAA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(7) of
FIPPA overrides s. 69 of the CPAA. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(3), 13(1) and 15 of FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all
of the information. The adjudicator ordered the CPABC to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.
The applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
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.
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. 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(1).
A journalist asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for records related to a news release on fraud cases that ICBC had investigated. ICBC disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). ICBC later argued that many of the records were court records and thus excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(a) (now s. 3(3)(a)). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information in dispute (drivers’ names and court and police file numbers) and ordered ICBC to refuse the journalist access to this information. The adjudicator also found that the issue of whether s. 3(1)(a) applies to some of the records was moot, as ICBC had already disclosed them in severed form.
The applicant 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 made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a cabinet briefing note and candidate profile and declaration for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive record, 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 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 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 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 requested information about short-term rental accommodation
and Airbnb in the City of Vancouver. The City refused access to the requested
information under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 19(1) (harm to individual safety), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to a small amount of the
information under ss. 15(1)(f), 19(1)(a) and 21(1). However, none of the exceptions applied to the rest of the disputed information and the City was ordered to disclose it to the applicant.
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.
The applicant requested the full names of the members of a community panel the City of Vancouver (City) convened to make a recommendation about a new
arterial road. The City decided to release all the names of the panelists, despite the objections of one panelist (the Panelist). The Panelist requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold their name. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires the City to withhold the Panelist’s name.
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 a variety of information from Community Living
British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld
other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA).
This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to
ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client
privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no
disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken
together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or
required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.
The applicant made requests under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Citizens’
Services (Ministries) for access to records containing any and all allegations made by a
named individual against the applicant, either in writing or in an audio recording. The
Ministries released the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some records
and information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal
privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested a review of the Ministries’ decisions. The
adjudicator concluded that the Ministries were required to refuse to disclose some of the
disputed information under s. 22(1), including most of two audio recordings, but were
required to disclose the balance of the disputed information to the applicant.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the 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.
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).
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.
The applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investigation that led to the well known 2012 Ministry employee firings. The Ministry provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This order considers ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 applied, and that s. 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that she found s. 22 did not apply to.
An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal information. The public body refused access to information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that ss. 13,14 and 22 applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 17 did not. The adjudicator ordered the public body to disclose a small amount of information to the applicant.
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 requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
In Order F20-18, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency) to produce 20 pages of records to the OIPC so that she could make a decision respecting the public body’s application of s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) to those 20 pages.The public body complied, producing the records for the adjudicator’s review. The public body also reconsidered its application of s. 22 to 18 pages of the records and decided to disclose those pages to the applicant. The adjudicator confirmed that s. 22 did not require the public body to withhold those 18 pages and found that s. 22 applied to the information withheld under that section in the remaining two pages.
The applicant made a request to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to records relating to an investigation the FHA conducted under the Adult Guardianship Act. The FHA withheld the information in dispute under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the FHA was not authorized to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 14 and that the FHA was required to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 22.
The applicant requested documents from BC Hydro relating to contractors who bid for a construction project. BC Hydro withheld some information from two pages under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed BC Hydro’s decision.
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.
A journalist requested various reports which allegedly relate to a named third party. The British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to neither confirm nor deny that the requested records exist. The adjudicator found that BCLC was authorized under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny that the requested records exist.
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 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 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.
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.
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), an applicant requested records related to communications strategies regarding the Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI). The University of British Columbia (UBC) disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed UBC’s decision regarding s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered UBC to disclose other information to which s. 22(1) does not apply.
An applicant requested access to records about the preparation of affidavits for a court action. The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA, to either confirm or deny the existence of the records on the grounds that disclosure of their existence would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed that the LSBC was authorized to rely on s. 8(2)(b).
The applicant, 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.
The applicant asked for any records with his name on them. The City disclosed some records, withholding information under ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence) and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The Adjudicator found that all three exceptions applied.
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 made two separate requests for records. The first request was for a copy of a report of an organizational review of the College. The adjudicator found that the College was not justified in withholding information from the report under ss. 12(3)(b) and 13(1) of FIPPA. However, with two small exceptions, the adjudicator found that disclosure of the personal information contained in the report would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA and it may not be disclosed. The applicant’s second request was for records related to the issue of assessing substantially equivalent qualifications of College registrants, and the adjudicator found that the refusal to disclose them was authorized under s. 13(1) of FIPPA.
A criminology professor requested decisions of the College on physicians disciplined for sexually inappropriate behaviour. The College disclosed a copy of an Agreement in which a physician admitted he had inappropriately hugged and kissed a patient and agreed to the College imposing discipline on him. The College previously made a separate public disclosure of the identity of the physician, a description of the charge against him, and the details of the discipline it imposed. The College withheld, under s. 22(1) of FIPPA, all information identifying the complainant and the physician, as well as the medical, educational and employment history of the physician. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the medical information of the complainant and the medical, educational and employment history of the physician, but not to the identity of the physician, the details of the charge or the terms of the discipline it imposed. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose this information in the Agreement.
The University of British Columbia Law Innocence Project applied for copies of an autopsy report and forensic laboratory report relating to a homicide. BCCS withheld the record under s. 22(1) on the grounds that disclosure of the victim’s medical information would be an unreasonable invasion of her privacy. UBCLIP argued that it required the Reports in order for its contracted forensic expert to complete a full and proper review of the autopsy and form an expert opinion as to whether the conclusions of the Coroner were flawed. It submitted that this circumstance rebutted the presumption that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information and ordered BCCS to withhold the Reports.
A journalist requested correspondence between BCLC and a director of a gaming company, who was also a former Chair of the Board of Directors of BCLC. BCLC identified email correspondence between the CEO of BCLC, as he then was, and the director to be responsive to the request and decided to disclose the records to the journalist. BCLC provided notice of the request to the director. The director requested a review on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA and would harm the interests of one of his businesses under s. 21. Section 22 applies only to the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties. The journalist argues that s. 25 of FIPPA requires disclosure of the correspondence as being in the public interest. Section 25 does not apply to any of the information. Section 21 does not apply to any of the information. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to withhold the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties and disclose the remainder of the information.
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested records of WorkSafeBC’s investigation into the incident. WorkSafeBC disclosed most of the information, except the identifying information of several individuals. Section 22 found not to apply to most of the withheld information and WorkSafeBC ordered to disclose it.
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested the records of the NWPB investigation into the incident. NWPB disclosed much of the information. Section 22(1) found not to apply to most of the information withheld under that exception and NWPB ordered to disclose it, subject to reconsideration of s. 15(1)g). Third parties found not to be “confidential sources of law enforcement information” and s. 15(1)(d) therefore does not apply. Some information relates to or was used in the “exercise of prosecutorial discretion”. However New Westminster Police Board found not to have exercised discretion properly in applying s.15(1)(g) and is ordered to reconsider its decision.
Adjudicator granted BC Housing’s request that this matter not proceed to inquiry.
Three applicants requested access to records related to termination of employees, severance paid and discipline imposed following an investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers into ICBC’s Material Damage Training and Research Facility. An affected third party requested a review of ICBC’s decision to disclose severed records related to him. ICBC’s proposed application of s. 22 found to be correct except for amount of third party’s severance which is ordered disclosed for public scrutiny reasons
The applicant requested access to electronic copies of 70 fields of Foundation Skills Assessment student summary data for a certain period, in order to carry out statistical research on the data. The Ministry refused access under s. 22. In his inquiry submission, the applicant offered to reduce the scope of his request to a few fields. The Ministry provided three options for disclosure of the narrower set of data, with Personal Education Numbers (PENs) encrypted, which in its view would not unreasonably invade individual student privacy. Ministry is ordered to disclose data in accordance with the option involving disclosure of the narrowed data with PENs encrypted and populations or cells of fewer than five students suppressed.
The Board is not required to refuse disclosure of the target silhouette that the applicant requested. Given the extensive publicity surrounding the record and its contents, its disclosure would not unreasonably invade the third party’s personal privacy. Even without that publicity, in light of the contents of the inscription, disclosure of the record would not unreasonably invade the third party’s personal privacy
The applicant, a former employee of BC Hydro, requested records relating to himself, a third party and a private company the two had previously shared an interest in. BC Hydro released some records but withheld some in whole or part. BC Hydro was required to disclose some of the records. BC Hydro was also authorized to withhold some of the records under ss. 13(1) and 14 and was required to withhold others under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.
The applicant requested a report of an investigation into an incident involving trees which were mistakenly cut down by UBC employees. UBC released the report, but withheld the names and positions of the employees who were involved in the incident and those who were interviewed in the investigation. UBC is required by s. 22 of FIPPA to withhold the names of the employees
Applicant requested copy of his son’s suicide note. Public body denied access under s. 22. Relevant circumstances, including applicant’s wish for “closure”, do not rebut the presumed invasion of third-party privacy. Public body is ordered to deny access to the personal information in the note.
The applicant requested records from the British Columbia Archives relating to events that occurred at Woodlands School in the early 1960’s. The BC Archives properly withheld the requested records under s. 22(1) and was not required to release them under s. 25(1)(b).
The applicant news agency requested access to the transcript and audio tape of 911 calls placed by a named individual, as well as a copy of police reports relating to those calls. Section 25(1) does not require disclosure in the public interest. The VPD is not authorized to withhold the information under s. 15(1)(c), but is required to withhold it under s. 22.
The applicant requested a copy of the report evaluating a research proposal that he submitted for funding through Forestry Innovation Investment. The Ministry provided the applicant with the requested record, which included comments made by the individuals who had reviewed the proposal, but severed the names of the reviewers under s. 22 of FIPPA. The Ministry also later claimed that s. 17 applied and authorized it to sever the names of the reviewers. The statutory presumption under s. 22(3) does not apply in this case. However, there are relevant factors under s. 22(2) that weigh against disclosure of the reviewers’ names and s. 22(1) does apply. Since the Ministry is required by s. 22(1) to sever the names of the reviewers, s. 17 need not be considered.
Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56.
Applicant requested access to her personal information in complaint letters. Insurance Council denied access to third-party personal information and to some of applicant’s own personal information - in the form of other people’s opinions about her - under s. 15(2)(b) and s. 22(1). Section 15(2)(b) found not to apply and s. 22(1) found not to apply to applicant’s own personal information, including identities of opinion holders.
Applicant requested access to her personal information in complaint letters. Insurance Council denied access to third-party personal information and to some of applicant’s own personal information—in the form of other people’s opinions about her—under s. 15(2)(b) and s. 22(1). Section 15(2)(b) found not to apply and s. 22(1) found not to apply to applicant’s own personal information, including identities of opinion holders.
Applicants requested access to information about themselves in Ministry records. The Ministry withheld some information under s. 77 of the CFCSA. Some information in the only record remaining in dispute falls under s. 77 and must be withheld.
Applicant requested various records relating to the SPCA, including a report on the care of animals, which the City withheld under s. 22. Personal information can reasonably be severed from the report and withheld. Remaining information found not to be personal information under s. 22. City ordered to disclose record with personal information severed.
Firefighters’ union requested copy of consultant’s report on labour relations within City fire and rescue service. City disclosed report with portions severed under ss. 17 and 22. Section 17 does not apply. Section 22 applies to some but not all information. City ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply
West Vancouver Police Association requested access to report of Ministry’s review of West Vancouver Police Department. Ministry disclosed report in severed form, withholding portions under s. 22. Ministry ordered to disclose most of withheld information.
Applicant requested complaint record provided by third party to BC Hydro. Third party objected to its disclosure, although he later agreed to disclosure of most of record. Section 22 applies to some but not all of remaining withheld information
The applicant requested records detailing the operations of ICBC’s Glass Express program, including records relating to suspensions of glass vendors’ rights under the program. ICBC properly applied ss. 14 and 22(1) and, in some places, s. 13(1). Some information withheld under s. 13(1) is ordered disclosed. Information withheld under s. 17(1) is ordered disclosed.
Applicant requested access to two reports of investigations into complaints the applicant made about her children’s teacher and about bullying of her children by other students. Section 22 requires the School District to refuse to disclose some, but not all, personal information in the reports. Section 21 is not applicable
Applicant requested records related to himself, his children and his ex-wife. Ministry withheld some information and said applicant had no right of access to records related to his children and ex-wife. Ministry correctly applied s. 77 CFCSA, with some minor exceptions and found to have exercised due diligence in searching for responsive records.
Applicant requested review of School District’s decision under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain records. Third-party teacher requested review of School District’s decision to disclose investigator’s report and hearing records in severed form. School District found to have applied s. 8(2)(b) properly and to have correctly decided to sever and disclose report and hearing records.
Parents requested access to two investigation reports regarding a third-party teacher. Teacher requested a review of the School District’s decision to disclose reports in severed form. School District found to have correctly decided to disclose severed reports.
The Ministry disclosed information in audit reports relating to three physicians’
services that were billed to the Medical Services Plan, but refused to disclose some information
from those reports. The information is personal information the disclosure of which would be an
unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the audited physicians under s. 22(1). The
Ministry is not required to disclose information under s. 25(1).
The applicant sought from the public body information that might confirm the
applicant’s suspicions that the public body was systematically biased against him. The public
body withheld from applicant under s. 19 certain information, on the basis of a perceived threat
by the applicant to the safety of public body employees. Public body submitted evidence of
applicant’s past behaviour, but such evidence was insufficient to satisfy the test of reasonable
expectation of threat set out in s. 19(1). Applicant’s personal information withheld under s. 22 is
ordered disclosed. Other s. 22 severances upheld relating to applicant’s family members.
The applicant requested records about herself and her daughter. Under ss. 21 and 22,
the VSB withheld some information and records. The VSB is found to have applied s. 22
properly and is ordered to prepare a s. 22(5) summary.
The applicant sought access to various Law Society records related to complaints he
had made about various lawyers. Order 02-01 and Order No. 260-1998 addressed many of the
records in dispute here and issue estoppel is found to apply to information dealt with in those
decisions. In the case of some but not all of the information in other records, the Law Society is
authorized to refuse to disclose information subject to s. 14 and is required to refuse to disclose
third-party personal information protected by s. 22.
The applicant complained to the College about the conduct of a College member.
The College disclosed 140 records from its complaint file, but refused to disclose, in their
entirety, 19 records. The College has failed to establish that s. 3(1)(b), s. 12(3)(b) or s. 15(2)(b)
apply. It is authorized to refuse disclosure of some information under ss. 13(1) and 14 and is
required to refuse disclosure by s. 22(3)(d) and (g). Section 22(1) does not require the College to
refuse the applicant access to her own personal information.
The applicant in this case is the daughter of a woman whose attempt to revisit
a mediated settlement of her previous access request to SFU was dealt with in Order 01-16. In
Order 01-16, it was held that SFU need not process the woman’s new access request. The evidence
establishes that the daughter’s access request, made 10 days after Order 01-16 was issued, was
made on her mother’s behalf, as an attempt to circumvent Order 01-16. This is an abuse of process
and will not be allowed. The principle of res judicata also applies. SFU’s decision on the merits
of the daughter’s access request, as an arm’s-length applicant, is upheld.
Applicant requested records related to his employment with the AIBC and to records
related to two other employees. The AIBC withheld several records under ss. 14, 17 and 22. Section 14 found to apply to one record. Section 17 found not to apply. Section 22(4)(e) found to apply to the employees’ employment contracts, job descriptions, salary and benefit information, which is ordered disclosed. Sections 22(1) and 22(3)(d) and (g) found to apply to some withheld
information.
The applicant had received, under the 1995 Adoption Act, a copy of his birth registration, which identified a particular woman as his birth mother. Applicant then requested access to records under the Act respecting his adoption, in order to establish his aboriginal ancestry. Ministry refused to disclose the name of the applicant’s putative birth father or personal information of other third parties. The applicant is not entitled to the personal information, as its disclosure would unreasonably invade the father’s personal privacy. Disclosure of identifying information of birth parents almost always will unreasonably invade their personal privacy under s. 22(1). Applicant also is not entitled to personal information of other third parties compiled in connection with his adoption, as disclosure would unreasonably invade their personal privacy.
Applicant sought copies of interview notes taken by WCB’s accident investigator, and names of witnesses found in the investigator’s accident investigation report, regarding the workplace death of her husband. Investigation was conducted in 1998. After close of inquiry, WCB abandoned reliance on s. 15(1). WCB continued to withhold personal information of some witnesses under s. 22(1). Witnesses’ identities are known to each other and the witnesses are known to the applicant. WCB not required to withhold personal information under s. 22(1), including factual observations. Section 22(5) not applicable.
Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information found in records relating to SFU’s review of a third party’s employment performance or associated records. Public interest disclosure not required. Personal information was not covered by s. 22(4). SFU was required to disclose minor amounts of information that was not covered by s. 22(1).
Applicant sought access to Ministry records about him. Applicant not entitled to see some of the third party personal information withheld from the record in issue. Third party personal information consisted of employment history of third party. Disclosure would be unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy.
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 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 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 records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about his interactions with outpatient services. The Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information from them under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires Island Health to refuse to disclose the information.
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.
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.
An applicant requested that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records related to a motor vehicle accident. ICBC provided some information in response but withheld other information under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, ICBC’s application of ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (legal advice and litigation privilege), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator also confirmed ICBC’s application of settlement privilege which is a common law exception to disclosure. The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose some information to the applicant.
An applicant requested that the Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to her deceased mother’s (the deceased) medical records. Fraser Health refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make the request on behalf of the deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation (Regulation). Fraser Health also refused the applicant access to the records under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased. The adjudicator further found that disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to all medical records relating to his mother (the deceased). FHA refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased in accordance with s. 5 of FIPPA. FHA also refused him access to the records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased and disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
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).
An applicant requested access to a record relating to the investigation of a professional practice complaint he filed against a nurse. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Coastal Health) withheld the entire responsive record under ss. 19 (harm to individual or public safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found Coastal Health properly withheld the record.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to a residential property. The City of Burnaby (City) withheld information in the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. In some cases, the City applied one or more FIPPA exceptions to the same information. The City also argued some information was not responsive to the applicant’s access request and, therefore, could be withheld. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) review the City’s decision to refuse access. The adjudicator found the information withheld by the City as “non-responsive” was in fact responsive to the access request and ordered the City to disclose some of that information. The adjudicator also determined the City could not withhold any of the information at issue under s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences). However, the adjudicator decided the City properly applied s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) to some of the information withheld from the responsive records. The City was ordered to disclose the information that the adjudicator determined could not be withheld under a FIPPA exception to access.
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).
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 applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) for records relating to herself and a particular College complaint investigation file. The College provided partial access, withholding information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14. The adjudicator also determined that the College is required or authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information that the College withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
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).
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.
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).
The applicant requested access to all documents relating to him and his complaint against a named physician. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the College correctly applied 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).
An applicant requested records related to a 2015 meeting attended by a representative of Destination British Columbia (DBC). DBC released the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 21(2) (information gathered for determining tax liability or collecting a tax), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 21(2). The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Finally, the adjudicator confirmed DBC’s decision to withhold a small amount of information under s. 13(1).
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.
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).
The applicant requested all of the records relating to her treatment at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital. The Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 22(1)
(unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information in
dispute but ordered Interior Health to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested records about himself from his employer, BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS). BCEHS provided 6,121 pages of responsive records, but withheld information in the records under ss. 3(3)(h) (scope of FIPPA), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). BCEHS also withheld a small amount of information under common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator confirmed BCEHS’s decisions with respect to ss. 3(3)(h), 13(1), 14, and (with one exception) s. 22. The adjudicator ordered BCEHS, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the records withheld under settlement privilege for the purpose of deciding this issue on the merits.
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.
The applicant requested access to her own personal information from the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC) relating to a complaint that she had made against a member of the CPABC. The CPABC
disclosed some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 15 (harm to law enforcement) and
22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (FIPPA). The CPABC also withheld all of the information under s. 69 of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act (CPAA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(7) of
FIPPA overrides s. 69 of the CPAA. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(3), 13(1) and 15 of FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all
of the information. The adjudicator ordered the CPABC to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.
An applicant asked the Office of the Premier and the BC Public Service
Agency (public bodies) for records related to a leave of absence without pay taken by a former named employee. The public bodies withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The investigator found that s. 22(1) applied to all of the information in dispute and that the public bodies were required to withhold it.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to an agreement between the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) and two named individuals, along with other related documents. The Ministry withheld the entire agreement on the basis it was
protected by settlement privilege, but provided the applicant with partial access to other records by withholding information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the agreement on the basis of settlement privilege, but that it was required to withhold the agreement under s. 22(1). The adjudicator also found the Ministry was required to withhold most of the remaining information at issue under s. 22(1). The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
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 applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
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 applicant requested copies of records relating to a call to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) about him, including an audio recording of the call. The VPD disclosed records, including a transcript of the audio recording, but withheld some information under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that the VPD had correctly applied s. 22 and ordered it to withhold the information.
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. 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(1).
A journalist asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for records related to a news release on fraud cases that ICBC had investigated. ICBC disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). ICBC later argued that many of the records were court records and thus excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(a) (now s. 3(3)(a)). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information in dispute (drivers’ names and court and police file numbers) and ordered ICBC to refuse the journalist access to this information. The adjudicator also found that the issue of whether s. 3(1)(a) applies to some of the records was moot, as ICBC had already disclosed them in severed form.
The applicant 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 made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a cabinet briefing note and candidate profile and declaration for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive record, 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 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 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 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 requested information about short-term rental accommodation
and Airbnb in the City of Vancouver. The City refused access to the requested
information under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 19(1) (harm to individual safety), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to a small amount of the
information under ss. 15(1)(f), 19(1)(a) and 21(1). However, none of the exceptions applied to the rest of the disputed information and the City was ordered to disclose it to the applicant.
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 records showing the days worked and days absent for a particular employee of the Office of the Premier during two stipulated periods. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) refused to disclose information in the responsive records under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information at issue and ordered the Ministry to withhold the information.
An applicant requested from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) records containing their personal information. VicPD 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 VicPD had correctly applied the exceptions to disclosure and confirmed its decision to withhold the information at issue.
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.
The applicant requested the full names of the members of a community panel the City of Vancouver (City) convened to make a recommendation about a new
arterial road. The City decided to release all the names of the panelists, despite the objections of one panelist (the Panelist). The Panelist requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold their name. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires the City to withhold the Panelist’s name.
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).
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo), the Evergreen Line and the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) provided partial access to the records by withholding information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1)(a) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (disclosure harmful to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 12(1), 14 and 22(1), but was not authorized or required to withhold the remaining information in dispute.
The applicant made requests under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Citizens’
Services (Ministries) for access to records containing any and all allegations made by a
named individual against the applicant, either in writing or in an audio recording. The
Ministries released the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some records
and information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal
privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested a review of the Ministries’ decisions. The
adjudicator concluded that the Ministries were required to refuse to disclose some of the
disputed information under s. 22(1), including most of two audio recordings, but were
required to disclose the balance of the disputed information to the applicant.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of British Columbia (UBC) for access to an investigation report. The report concerns allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment that the applicant made against a former UBC employee. UBC decided to disclose some of the information in the report. The former UBC employee argued that the disputed information should be withheld under s. 22(1) of FIPPA because its disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy. The adjudicator found the disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy and confirmed UBC’s decision that it is not required under s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose the disputed information to the applicant.
The public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file
under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to
public body’s financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply because the records had been in existence for 10 or more years, so s. 13(3) was engaged. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision, in part, to refuse access under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1) and ordered the public body to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) file on its investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. The VPD disclosed some of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 15 (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to the information in dispute and ordered the VPD to refuse the applicant access to it. It was not necessary to consider s. 15.
An applicant requested access to all records about himself held by BC Transit. BC Transit withheld some information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). This order addresses BC Transit’s decision to withhold the name of one of its employees under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the name of the employee in the circumstances.
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.
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 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.
The applicant corporation made a request to the City of Parksville (City)
for records relating to the City's decision to undertake litigation against the applicant.
The City refused to disclose portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal local
body confidences under s.12(3)(b), advice or recommendations under s. 13(1), solicitor
client privileged information under s. 14 or would unreasonably invade third party privacy
under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the City could withhold some but not all of the
information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1) and 14 of FIPPA. As a result of these findings, it
was not necessary for the adjudicator to consider whether s. 22 applied.
The applicant requested the names of all donors who donated over $3,000
to the University of Victoria between October 1, 2015 and September 15, 2016, along
with the amount they donated. The University provided some information to the
applicant, but withheld other information pursuant to ss. 17(1) (harm to financial
interests), 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party), and s. 22 (unreasonable
invasion of personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the University was
authorized under s. 17 of FIPPA to withhold some of the information and required by
s. 22 to refuse to disclose other information. A small amount of information was ordered
to be disclosed to the applicant. Given the findings, it was not necessary to also consider
s. 21.
The applicant made a request to the District of Sechelt for all correspondence, reports or notes relating to incidents that occurred on his property and that were the subject of complaints by third parties. The District of Sechelt refused to disclose portions of the records under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute and that ss. 15(1)(c) and (d) did not apply.
The applicant requested records that relate to the City of Vancouver’s decision to discipline the applicant at work. The City of Vancouver refused access to portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal advice or recommendations under s. 13 and that it would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the City is authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under s.13. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 applies to some of the information but that that the City is required to disclose the remaining information.
An applicant requested access to records about the preparation of affidavits for a court action. The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA, to either confirm or deny the existence of the records on the grounds that disclosure of their existence would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed that the LSBC was authorized to rely on s. 8(2)(b).
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.
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.
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
The applicant 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, 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.
The applicant asked Langara College for grades assigned to him by classmates in a business course, as well as those that his classmates assigned to each other. The College refused access on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the applicant’s classmates under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The Adjudicator agreed, but found that the College was required to give the applicant a summary of his grades in a manner that would not identify his classmates.
The applicant requested year-end pay statements of a former and current CAO of the City of Rossland. The City withheld the pay statements on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information in the pay statements because it was not an unreasonable invasion of privacy, including information about remuneration under s. 22(4)(e) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City must continue to withhold some information that under s. 22(3) is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy if disclosed.
The applicant requested the BC Coroners Service file on its investigation
into the death of a named individual. The Coroners Service disclosed some records but denied access to others under ss. 64(1)(a) and 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act and s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 64(1)(a) or 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act apply to most of the records. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 of FIPPA applies to a number
of records, with the exception of three records that were provided to the Coroners Service by the applicant. The adjudicator ordered the Coroners Service to disclose those three records to the applicant.
The applicant requested records about a named employee of the BC public service. The request was responded to by the BC Public Service Agency, part of the Ministry of Finance, which withheld the responsive records from the employee’s personnel file on the basis disclosure was an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of the information about the named employee’s position, functions and remuneration because it would not be an unreasonable invasion of the employee’s privacy under s. 22(4)(e) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry must continue to withhold the remaining information because there is a presumption that disclosure of the information would be an unreasonable invasion of the named employee’s privacy under s. 22(3) and the presumption was not rebutted by any factors, including those in s. 22(2) of FIPPA.
A journalist requested records relating to medications for the treatment of Adult Macular Degeneration. The Ministries withheld portions of the requested information under ss. 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 of FIPPA. The Assistant Commissioner ordered the public bodies to disclose parts of the withheld information, authorized the public bodies to withhold parts of the withheld information under s. 13, 14, 16, and 17 of FIPPA, and required the public bodies to refuse to disclose parts of the withheld information under ss. 21 and 22 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested video recordings relating to the time that she was detained at the Vancouver City Jail. On judicial review of a previous order in which some recordings were ordered released with some redactions, the Supreme Court of British Columbia held that the facial image of a Correctional Officer in the recording was third party personal information and remitted back to the Commissioner the question of whether the release of that information would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s privacy. The applicant made no submissions on the remittal. The applicant has not met the burden of showing that the release of the information would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s privacy.
Applicant requested records confirming certain types of personal information regarding six individuals in connection with a neighbouring property. ICBC found to have properly refused access to this information under s. 22.
An auto body shop applied for records in the custody of ICBC. The records consisted of internal e-mails and documents relating to the ongoing relationship between the shop and ICBC. ICBC had denied the shop accreditation, resulting in an appeal and revocation of the shop’s vendor number. ICBC did not succeed completely on its application of ss. 13 and 17 to a vast number of records. ICBC is required to demonstrate the information it withheld under s. 13 was created for the purpose of advising or recommending a specific course of action or range of actions or that it so advises or recommends. Under s. 17, ICBC is required to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to its financial or economic interest from disclosure of specific information. ICBC succeeded on its application of s. 14 to records created for the dominant purpose of preparing for, advising on or conducting litigation. ICBC succeeded in its application of s. 15 to certain investigation records. The Material Damage Specialist Fraud Unit’s activities qualified as law enforcement, certain records were part of an actual investigation and ICBC demonstrated a reasonable expectation of harm. ICBC was able to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that disclosure of certain identities could threaten certain individuals’ safety or mental or physical health. Thus s. 19 was accepted for certain identifying information. ICBC properly applied s. 22 to certain third party personal information, but it was not properly applied to ICBC employee names and identities.
An applicant requested information about himself from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under various sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(3)(a) of FIPPA (records to which FIPPA does not apply) did not apply. The adjudicator found that ss. 77(1) (identity of a person who made a child protection report) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during an assessment or investigation) of the CFCSA applied to most, but not all, of the information the Ministry withheld under those sections. The adjudicator found that the Ministry properly applied s. 14 of FIPPA (solicitor-client privilege), and that the Ministry was required to withhold most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
An applicant requested access to her deceased mother’s medical records from Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health). Fraser Health refused the applicant’s access request, taking the position that the applicant was not acting on behalf of her mother under s. 5(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation, and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. During the inquiry, Fraser Health disclosed some information in the responsive records. The adjudicator determined that the applicant was not acting on behalf of her mother, and that disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy under s. 22(1).
An applicant 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 access to records exchanged between Thompson Rivers University (TRU) and its legal counsel regarding an investigation into a workplace complaint a TRU faculty member made about the applicant. TRU disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 19 (disclosure harmful to individual health and safety), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 14 and required to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 22. As TRU’s withheld the same information under s. 19 and s. 22, the adjudicator did not consider s. 19.
An applicant requested 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 asked Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for access to all documents sent to or received by a specific TRU employee that mention the applicant. TRU disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 19(1)(a) (disclosure harmful to individual safety) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU is required to withhold almost all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that TRU was not required or permitted to withhold a small amount of information under any FIPPA exception to disclosure and required TRU to provide this information to the applicant. Section 19(1)(a) was not at issue with respect to any information that the adjudicator required TRU to provide to the applicant.
An applicant requested access to all records relating to his child from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). The Ministry refused to disclose information on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the child in accordance with s. 5(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 3(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation (Regulation), and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that the applicant was authorized to make the request on behalf of the child and that the Ministry was required to refuse access to some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
The executor of a deceased person’s estate requested the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) provide copies of the deceased’s hospital and nursing home records. VIHA withheld some personal information of third parties on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the third parties’ personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed the decision of VIHA to withhold the information.
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 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 records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
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.
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.
An applicant requested that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records related to a motor vehicle accident. ICBC provided some information in response but withheld other information under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, ICBC’s application of ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (legal advice and litigation privilege), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator also confirmed ICBC’s application of settlement privilege which is a common law exception to disclosure. The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose some information to the applicant.
The applicant requested all minutes of City Council and committee meetings, emails, and social media messages that included any variation of her name from the City of Pitt Meadows (the City). The City disclosed the records but withheld some information under ss. (13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 14 in full, and its decision under ss. 22(1) in part, and ordered the City to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1) to the applicant.
An applicant requested that the Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to her deceased mother’s (the deceased) medical records. Fraser Health refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make the request on behalf of the deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation (Regulation). Fraser Health also refused the applicant access to the records under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased. The adjudicator further found that disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
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 made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to all medical records relating to his mother (the deceased). FHA refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased in accordance with s. 5 of FIPPA. FHA also refused him access to the records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased and disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
An applicant requested access to a record relating to the investigation of a professional practice complaint he filed against a nurse. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Coastal Health) withheld the entire responsive record under ss. 19 (harm to individual or public safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found Coastal Health properly withheld the record.
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).
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 applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to certain records. FHA disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information in them. The applicant requested a review of this decision. FHA also notified a third party that it planned to disclose some records (Audit Reports) to the applicant. The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision. The adjudicator determined that FHA was not required to refuse to disclose the Audit Reports under s. 21(1) of FIPPA, but that it was required to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the implementation of medical assistance in dying practices and procedures by the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). FHA disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information under several exceptions in Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) applied to some, but not all, of the information FHA withheld. The adjudicator ordered FHA to disclose the information which was not covered by ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), or 22(1) of FIPPA.
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 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 requested records relating to two courses offered at Simon Fraser University (SFU). SFU responded providing access to records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that SFU had correctly applied s. 22(1) to the personal information at issue, but that it had incorrectly applied it to information that was not personal information. The adjudicator ordered SFU to disclose the information that was not personal information.
A journalist requested reviews, reports, audits and analyses concerning COVID-19 outbreaks at two health care facilities of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA). VCHA disclosed some records but withheld information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a system), s. 17(1) (financial harm to the public body) 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 VCHA to disclose the remainder. He found that ss. 15(1)(l) and 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and ordered VCHA to disclose it.
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.
An applicant requested the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) give him access to his registrant file. The College refused access to some of the records and parts of records under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and pursuant to s. 26.2 of the Health Professions Act (HPA). The adjudicator finds that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 26.2 of the HPA apply to most of the information in dispute. The adjudicator orders the College to give the applicant access to the information to which those provisions do not apply.
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.
A journalist requested access to CCTV recordings from two cameras at a BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo) facility. The recording included the last 23 seconds of the life of a film production motorcycle stunt driver. PavCo withheld the recordings under s. 22(1) on the grounds that disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. The adjudicator upheld the decision of PavCo to deny access to the records.
The applicant requested all of the records relating to her treatment at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital. The Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 22(1)
(unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information in
dispute but ordered Interior Health to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry). The Ministry withheld some information under s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) and s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute under those exceptions. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the information in dispute considered under that exception.
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).
The applicant requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). In response, the Ministry provided 8,936 pages of responsive records, withholding some information under a number of different exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under ss. 13(1), and 14 and some of the information under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) and 18(a). The Ministry was required to withhold some information in dispute under ss. 12(1) and 22(1). However, the Ministry was required to disclose some of the information it withheld under ss. 12(1), 16(1)(a)(iii), 18(a) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 16(1)(c) did not apply to the information considered under that section. The Ministry also withheld some information under common law settlement privilege, but did not provide the records in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to produce the records for the purpose of adjudicating settlement privilege. The applicant also complained that the Ministry did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for text messages and deleted emails.
The applicants made separate requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) for access to records containing information about them relating to their operation of a foster home. The Ministry withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under ss. 15(1)(d) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The Ministry also decided that some records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(c). The adjudicator determined that some of the disputed records are beyond the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c). Regarding the other records, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold most, but not all, of the disputed information under s. 22(1) and that, given this finding, it is not necessary to also consider s. 15(1)(d).
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 journalist requested records related to the BCCS’s investigation into the death of a third party. The BCCS initially withheld all of the records under s. 64(1) of the Coroners Act. The BCCS then disclosed the records but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of 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 ordered the BCCS to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
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 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 made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a cabinet briefing note and candidate profile and declaration for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive record, 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 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 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 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 requested information about short-term rental accommodation
and Airbnb in the City of Vancouver. The City refused access to the requested
information under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 19(1) (harm to individual safety), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to a small amount of the
information under ss. 15(1)(f), 19(1)(a) and 21(1). However, none of the exceptions applied to the rest of the disputed information and the City was ordered to disclose it to the applicant.
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 requested a variety of information from Community Living
British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld
other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA).
This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to
ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client
privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no
disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken
together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or
required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The 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.
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 access to correspondence between a named employee of the City of Vancouver (City) and three other individuals. The City disclosed 31 pages of emails, withholding some information under ss. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the City to disclose this information. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered the City to disclose the information to which she found s. 22(1) does not apply. The applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) requires disclosure of the withheld information but the adjudicator found that it does not.
The applicant requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
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.
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.
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 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.
A pharmacy’s lawyer requested copies of complaints and allegations about the pharmacy’s business practices. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(d) (reveal identity of confidential source of law enforcement information) and s. 22 (harm to third-party personal privacy) applied to almost all of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that s. 19(1)(a) (harm to safety) did not apply to the names of three Ministry employees and ordered the Ministry to disclose this information to the lawyer.
The applicant requested 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.
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 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, 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.
The applicant requested the BC Coroners Service file on its investigation
into the death of a named individual. The Coroners Service disclosed some records but denied access to others under ss. 64(1)(a) and 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act and s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 64(1)(a) or 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act apply to most of the records. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 of FIPPA applies to a number
of records, with the exception of three records that were provided to the Coroners Service by the applicant. The adjudicator ordered the Coroners Service to disclose those three records to the applicant.
A criminology professor requested decisions of the College on physicians disciplined for sexually inappropriate behaviour. The College disclosed a copy of an Agreement in which a physician admitted he had inappropriately hugged and kissed a patient and agreed to the College imposing discipline on him. The College previously made a separate public disclosure of the identity of the physician, a description of the charge against him, and the details of the discipline it imposed. The College withheld, under s. 22(1) of FIPPA, all information identifying the complainant and the physician, as well as the medical, educational and employment history of the physician. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the medical information of the complainant and the medical, educational and employment history of the physician, but not to the identity of the physician, the details of the charge or the terms of the discipline it imposed. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose this information in the Agreement.
A journalist requested correspondence between BCLC and a director of a gaming company, who was also a former Chair of the Board of Directors of BCLC. BCLC identified email correspondence between the CEO of BCLC, as he then was, and the director to be responsive to the request and decided to disclose the records to the journalist. BCLC provided notice of the request to the director. The director requested a review on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA and would harm the interests of one of his businesses under s. 21. Section 22 applies only to the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties. The journalist argues that s. 25 of FIPPA requires disclosure of the correspondence as being in the public interest. Section 25 does not apply to any of the information. Section 21 does not apply to any of the information. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to withhold the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties and disclose the remainder of the information.
An applicant requested his personal information in the custody of the VPD. The VPD responded by releasing copies of four police occurrence reports involving the applicant, but withholding some information collected through CPIC under s. 16(1)(b) and the personal information of third parties collected as part of the investigations on the four files under s. 22(1). The VPD was not authorized to refuse to disclose information under s. 16(1)(b) and is ordered to disclose this information. The VPD was required to withhold other information under s. 22(1), except for information that the applicant himself provided to the VPD.
A physician whose employment and hospital privileges at the CWHC are presently suspended requested minutes of the meetings of a medical departmental staff committee of the CWHC. The PHSA responded by providing the applicant with records while withholding information under ss. 12(1), 13, 17 and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. The PHSA subsequently ceased to rely on ss. 13 and 17. Section 51 of the Evidence Act applies to some but not all passages. PHSA ordered to process this latter information under FIPPA. Section 22 of FIPPA applies to the medical information of patients and staff. It also applies to the employment history of staff and prospective staff, including evaluations of work, announcement of retirements and new hiring, the passing of exams and immigration issues. Section 22 does not apply to the professional opinions that identifiable physicians expressed relating to the operation of the CWHC and the PHSA is ordered to disclose this information.
The applicant requested certain records in the inquest files of two dozen individuals. The Ministry disclosed the Verdict at Coroner‘s Inquest in each case, together with correspondence on the juries‘ recommendations. It withheld a number of records on the basis that they were excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act or, alternatively, under s. 3(1)(b) of FIPPA. It withheld the rest of the records under ss. 15, 16(1)(b) and 22(1). Section 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act does not apply as it was not in effect at the time of the requests or Ministry‘s decision on access. Section 3(1)(b) applies to records related to coroners‘ inquest-related functions but not to other records, including those reflecting administrative activities. Section 3(1)(c) applies to a handful of records, although Ministry did not claim it. Ministry ordered to reconsider its decision to apply s. 16(1)(b) on the grounds that it failed to exercise discretion. It was not necessary to consider s. 15. Section 22(1) found to apply to many but not all other records. Ministry ordered to disclose certain records to which ss. 3(1)(b) and 22(1) do not apply.
The VCHA investigated abuse allegations concerning an elderly woman. Four family members related to the elderly woman requested records from the VCHA about themselves because of concerns they were the subject of these allegations. In considering all of the relevant circumstances, the VCHA is required to withhold the information in dispute under s. 22 of FIPPA. Though the Adult Guardianship Act did not trump FIPPA, VCHA’s obligations under that Act were relevant to determining that the disputed records were provided in confidence.
The applicant requested access to electronic copies of 70 fields of Foundation Skills Assessment student summary data for a certain period, in order to carry out statistical research on the data. The Ministry refused access under s. 22. In his inquiry submission, the applicant offered to reduce the scope of his request to a few fields. The Ministry provided three options for disclosure of the narrower set of data, with Personal Education Numbers (PENs) encrypted, which in its view would not unreasonably invade individual student privacy. Ministry is ordered to disclose data in accordance with the option involving disclosure of the narrowed data with PENs encrypted and populations or cells of fewer than five students suppressed.
The applicant requested access to records related to the VPD's homicide investigation of the 1992 death of a named individual. The VPD initially refused access to all of the records under s. 22(3)(b) of FIPPA. It later added other exceptions and disclosed some records. The VPD is required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested access to records related to the 1989 death of a named individual. The VPD initially withheld all records under s. 22(3)(b). It later added other exceptions and disclosed a few pages. The VPD are required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested access to records related to the “police involved shooting” in 2004 of a named individual. The VPD initially refused access to all of the records under s. 22(3)(b). It later added other exceptions and argued that additional records were excluded under s. 66.1 of the Police Act. It also released some records. The VPD are required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1). Certain other pages are excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 66.1 of the Police Act.
Applicant requested access to records from an investigation into human rights complaints against him. The PHSA disclosed some records and withheld others under s. 3(1)(b) and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. It also took the position that some pages were not in its custody or control. Section 3(1)(b) found not to apply and PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a decision on entitlement to access respecting those pages. Section 51 of the Evidence Act found to apply to other pages. PHSA found to have custody and control of certain pages and ordered to provide applicant with a decision on access regarding those pages. Section 22 found to apply to some information and not to other information. PHSA ordered to provide the applicant with access to information to which s. 22 was found not to apply.
Applicant requested copy of his son’s suicide note. Public body denied access under s. 22. Relevant circumstances, including applicant’s wish for “closure”, do not rebut the presumed invasion of third-party privacy. Public body is ordered to deny access to the personal information in the note.
The applicant requested records from the British Columbia Archives relating to events that occurred at Woodlands School in the early 1960’s. The BC Archives properly withheld the requested records under s. 22(1) and was not required to release them under s. 25(1)(b).
Applicants requested access to information about themselves in Ministry records. The Ministry withheld some information under s. 77 of the CFCSA. Some information in the only record remaining in dispute falls under s. 77 and must be withheld.
Applicant requested records from files of two human rights investigators. VCHA disclosed a number of records and withheld and severed others under ss. 14 and 22 of the Act. VCHA found to have applied s. 14 correctly. VCHA found to have applied s. 22 correctly to some information and records but not to others. VCHA ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply.
Applicant requested access to records related to himself in the public body’s security and infection control areas. PHSA correctly refused access to information under s. 14 and for the most part under s. 22. PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a few items of information withheld under s. 22 and with summary under s. 22(5). A few pages are not in PHSA’s custody or control. Other pages are in PHSA’s control and it is ordered to process them under the Act.
Applicant requested records related to his interactions with a number of named doctors at the PHSA. The PHSA withheld some information under ss. 14 and 22. Applicant objected to decision to withhold information and also questioned the completeness of the PHSA’s response. The PHSA applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases s. 22. The PHSA is ordered to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22. The PHSA did not show that it complied with s. 6(1) in its response and is ordered to do so.
The applicant requested her adoption file from the Ministry. The Ministry responded with records, severing information about third parties including the name of the applicant’s birth father under s. 22. The Ministry found to have applied s. 22 properly to the severed records.
Applicant requested records related to himself. PHSA disclosed large number of records and withheld others under ss. 12(3), 13(1), 14 and 22. Applicant disputed decision to withhold information and also complained about delay in PHSA’s response and records search. PHSA found to have applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases also ss. 13(1) and 22. PHSA found not to have complied with its duties under s. 6(1) and ordered to search again.
Applicant requested records related to himself, his children and his ex-wife. Ministry withheld some information and said applicant had no right of access to records related to his children and ex-wife. Ministry correctly applied s. 77 CFCSA, with some minor exceptions and found to have exercised due diligence in searching for responsive records.
Applicant requested records related to her academic appeal. UBC provided records,
withholding other records and information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13(1), 14 and 22. UBC found to have
applied ss. 3(1)(b), and 14 properly and, with one exception, s. 22 as well. UBC ordered to
disclose some personal information related to applicant. Section 13(1) found not to apply in all
cases and UBC ordered to disclose draft letters.
The applicant sought from the public body information that might confirm the
applicant’s suspicions that the public body was systematically biased against him. The public
body withheld from applicant under s. 19 certain information, on the basis of a perceived threat
by the applicant to the safety of public body employees. Public body submitted evidence of
applicant’s past behaviour, but such evidence was insufficient to satisfy the test of reasonable
expectation of threat set out in s. 19(1). Applicant’s personal information withheld under s. 22 is
ordered disclosed. Other s. 22 severances upheld relating to applicant’s family members.
Applicant requested records relating to a complaint she made to the College about
a dentist. The College properly withheld the personal information of third parties withheld under
s. 22. The College performed its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search for records
responsive to the request
Applicant requested a copy of any information in the custody or control of the PGT
concerning herself, including allegations made against her with respect to her mother. The PGT
provided some information to the applicant but denied access to a letter and other information it
received in confidence from a third party. The PGT was required to withhold the records, as
disclosure would reveal the identity of the third party. However, because some of the information
supplied in confidence was personal information about the applicant, the PGT is ordered to
comply with its s. 22(5) duty to provide the applicant with a summary of her own personal
information
The applicant sought her deceased son’s medical records. The applicant is the nearest relative of the deceased son within the meaning of s. 3(c) of the FOI Regulation, but in the circumstances of this case is not acting on his behalf under that section. Assessing her request as a third party, the Commission has correctly refused access to the son’s personal information under s. 22(1)
The applicant requested records relating to the College’s accidental disclosure, in 1997, of prescription-related information of two hospital patients. The College initially failed to conduct a reasonable search for records, but corrected that failure by searching again for records during mediation. The College is authorized to withhold a legal opinion under s. 14. The College is required by s. 22(1) to withhold third party personal information.
The applicant had received, under the 1995 Adoption Act, a copy of his birth registration, which identified a particular woman as his birth mother. Applicant then requested access to records under the Act respecting his adoption, in order to establish his aboriginal ancestry. Ministry refused to disclose the name of the applicant’s putative birth father or personal information of other third parties. The applicant is not entitled to the personal information, as its disclosure would unreasonably invade the father’s personal privacy. Disclosure of identifying information of birth parents almost always will unreasonably invade their personal privacy under s. 22(1). Applicant also is not entitled to personal information of other third parties compiled in connection with his adoption, as disclosure would unreasonably invade their personal privacy.
Applicant sought his own claim file records from the WCB. WCB provided some records immediately and provided others later, in stages. WCB discovered and provided further records during the course of mediation by this Office. WCB found to ultimately have fulfilled its s. 6(1) search duty. Section 22(3)(a) found to apply to names and medical information of other WCB claimants in requested records.
Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1), as information does not consist of advice or recommendations. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld under that section, but s. 22(1) applies, in part on the basis of s. 22(3)(a), to some of the same information. Section 22(3)(d) does not apply to information about ministry employees’ work-related actions, so s. 22(1) does not apply to that information. Ministry found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information found in records relating to SFU’s review of a third party’s employment performance or associated records. Public interest disclosure not required. Personal information was not covered by s. 22(4). SFU was required to disclose minor amounts of information that was not covered by s. 22(1).
Applicant sought access to school counsellor’s notes of interviews with applicant’s children. School board required to refuse disclosure of student’s personal information under s. 22(1) and authorized to refuse to disclose same information on the basis of s. 19 (1).
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.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for records related to the Ministry’s inspection of the applicant’s property. The Ministry responded to the applicant and withheld some records and information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information and records it withheld under s. 14 and required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 13(1).
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.
The applicant requested records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about his interactions with outpatient services. The Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information from them under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires Island Health to refuse to disclose the information.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the BC Securities Commission (BCSC) for records relating to the BCSC’s penalty collection rate, amendments to the Securities Act, and the BCSC’s collection action against the applicant. The BCSC withheld the information in dispute under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(1), 13(1), and 22(1) applied to some, but not all, of the information in dispute and ordered the BCSC to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under those sections. The adjudicator also ordered the BCSC to reconsider its decision to withhold certain information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient evidence that the BCSC considered all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to withhold that information.
An applicant requested access to records related to the Metro Vancouver Transit Police’s (MVTP’s) investigation into a dispute in which he was involved. The MVTP disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information and records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the MVTP was required to withhold most of the information under s. 22(1) and ordered the MVTP to disclose the remainder of the information.
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).
An applicant requested records created pursuant to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which requires crown counsel to report adverse judicial comments on a peace officer’s testimony. The Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) withheld information in two of the responsive records under s. 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry also decided that the name of the involved police officer could be disclosed, and notified the police officer’s employer, who requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The applicant and another party were also invited to participate in the inquiry.
An applicant requested 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.
An applicant requested access to a record relating to the investigation of a professional practice complaint he filed against a nurse. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Coastal Health) withheld the entire responsive record under ss. 19 (harm to individual or public safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found Coastal Health properly withheld the record.
An applicant requested from the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) a copy of a police report concerning him in its possession. VIHA withheld portions of the report under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that ss. 22(1) applied to all of the information at issue and required VIHA to refuse to disclose it.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
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.
An applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) for records relating to herself and a particular College complaint investigation file. The College provided partial access, withholding information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14. The adjudicator also determined that the College is required or authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information that the College withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to certain records. FHA disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information in them. The applicant requested a review of this decision. FHA also notified a third party that it planned to disclose some records (Audit Reports) to the applicant. The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision. The adjudicator determined that FHA was not required to refuse to disclose the Audit Reports under s. 21(1) of FIPPA, but that it was required to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
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.
An employee made two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA). One was for a report of an investigation into a respectful workplace complaint and associated records. The other was for her personal information relating to job competitions. VIHA withheld some of the information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy of a third party). The adjudicator found that VIHA had correctly applied s. 13(1) to some of the information. The adjudicator ordered VIHA to disclose the rest of the information to which it applied s. 13(1). The adjudicator confirmed VIHA’s decision to apply s. 22(1).
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).
The applicants made separate requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) for access to records containing information about them relating to their operation of a foster home. The Ministry withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under ss. 15(1)(d) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The Ministry also decided that some records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(c). The adjudicator determined that some of the disputed records are beyond the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c). Regarding the other records, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold most, but not all, of the disputed information under s. 22(1) and that, given this finding, it is not necessary to also consider s. 15(1)(d).
The applicant requested access to her own personal information from the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC) relating to a complaint that she had made against a member of the CPABC. The CPABC
disclosed some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 15 (harm to law enforcement) and
22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (FIPPA). The CPABC also withheld all of the information under s. 69 of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act (CPAA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(7) of
FIPPA overrides s. 69 of the CPAA. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(3), 13(1) and 15 of FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all
of the information. The adjudicator ordered the CPABC to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.
An applicant requested records 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 applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
The applicant requested copies of records relating to a call to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) about him, including an audio recording of the call. The VPD disclosed records, including a transcript of the audio recording, but withheld some information under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy). The adjudicator found that the VPD had correctly applied s. 22 and ordered it to withhold the information.
A journalist asked the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for records related to a news release on fraud cases that ICBC had investigated. ICBC disclosed the records in severed form, withholding information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). ICBC later argued that many of the records were court records and thus excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(a) (now s. 3(3)(a)). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information in dispute (drivers’ names and court and police file numbers) and ordered ICBC to refuse the journalist access to this information. The adjudicator also found that the issue of whether s. 3(1)(a) applies to some of the records was moot, as ICBC had already disclosed them in severed form.
The applicant requested 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 from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) records containing their personal information. VicPD 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 VicPD had correctly applied the exceptions to disclosure and confirmed its decision to withhold the information at issue.
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.
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).
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.
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) file on its investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. The VPD disclosed some of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 15 (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to the information in dispute and ordered the VPD to refuse the applicant access to it. It was not necessary to consider s. 15.
The applicant 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.
An applicant requested information related to a specific motor vehicle accident claim from ICBC. ICBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several exceptions to access in FIPPA. At inquiry, the adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision to apply these FIPPA exceptions to most of the information in dispute and ordered ICBC to disclose the rest to the applicant.
A physician requested copies of all information the Medical Services Commission (MSC) held about him. The MSC disclosed the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The physician asked that an inquiry beheld to determine if s. 22(1) applies to the patients’ names and Personal Health Numbers (PHNs) in the records. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to patients’ names and PHNs.
A journalist requested various reports which allegedly relate to a named third party. The British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to neither confirm nor deny that the requested records exist. The adjudicator found that BCLC was authorized under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny that the requested records exist.
An employee requested his personnel file under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The City of Surrey (City) disclosed many records but also withheld information related to its investigation of his off-duty conduct under several exceptions in FIPPA: ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations); 15(1) (harm to law enforcement); 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations); 17(1) (harm to public body?s financial or economic interests); 19(1) (harm to individual or public safety); and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 16(1)(b) applied to some of the withheld information. The adjudicator also found that ss. 15(1)(a) and (d), 17(1), 19(1)(a) and (b) and 22(1) did not apply to the remaining withheld information and ordered that the City disclose this information to the employee.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The applicant asked for any records with his name on them. The City disclosed some records, withholding information under ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence) and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The Adjudicator found that all three exceptions applied.
The applicant requested 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.
The applicant requested the BC Coroners Service file on its investigation
into the death of a named individual. The Coroners Service disclosed some records but denied access to others under ss. 64(1)(a) and 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act and s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 64(1)(a) or 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act apply to most of the records. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 of FIPPA applies to a number
of records, with the exception of three records that were provided to the Coroners Service by the applicant. The adjudicator ordered the Coroners Service to disclose those three records to the applicant.
The applicant requested records related to his involvement as a suspect in a police investigation. The adjudicator found the VPD was required to withhold most of the information on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The VPD was not required to withhold information relating to the police officers’ actions.
A criminology professor requested decisions of the College on physicians disciplined for sexually inappropriate behaviour. The College disclosed a copy of an Agreement in which a physician admitted he had inappropriately hugged and kissed a patient and agreed to the College imposing discipline on him. The College previously made a separate public disclosure of the identity of the physician, a description of the charge against him, and the details of the discipline it imposed. The College withheld, under s. 22(1) of FIPPA, all information identifying the complainant and the physician, as well as the medical, educational and employment history of the physician. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the medical information of the complainant and the medical, educational and employment history of the physician, but not to the identity of the physician, the details of the charge or the terms of the discipline it imposed. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose this information in the Agreement.
A physician requested his entire file from the College. In response, the College disclosed over 1,600 pages of records, withholding other information and records under s. 3(1)(c) and s. 22(1). The College is found to have applied s. 3(1)(c) correctly. The College is also found to have applied s. 22(1) correctly to some information. It is ordered to disclose other information to which s. 22(1) was found not to apply, including “contact information” and the applicant’s own personal information.
The applicant requested a police report from the Abbotsford Police which disclosed the report in severed form. The APB was found to have severed information correctly under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 19(1).
An applicant requested his personal information in the custody of the VPD. The VPD responded by releasing copies of four police occurrence reports involving the applicant, but withholding some information collected through CPIC under s. 16(1)(b) and the personal information of third parties collected as part of the investigations on the four files under s. 22(1). The VPD was not authorized to refuse to disclose information under s. 16(1)(b) and is ordered to disclose this information. The VPD was required to withhold other information under s. 22(1), except for information that the applicant himself provided to the VPD.
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested records of WorkSafeBC’s investigation into the incident. WorkSafeBC disclosed most of the information, except the identifying information of several individuals. Section 22 found not to apply to most of the withheld information and WorkSafeBC ordered to disclose it.
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested the records of the NWPB investigation into the incident. NWPB disclosed much of the information. Section 22(1) found not to apply to most of the information withheld under that exception and NWPB ordered to disclose it, subject to reconsideration of s. 15(1)g). Third parties found not to be “confidential sources of law enforcement information” and s. 15(1)(d) therefore does not apply. Some information relates to or was used in the “exercise of prosecutorial discretion”. However New Westminster Police Board found not to have exercised discretion properly in applying s.15(1)(g) and is ordered to reconsider its decision.
The applicant requested records compiled under s. 86 of the Gaming Control Act reporting suspected or actual illegal activities in registered gaming establishments and casinos. This Order follows Order F08-03 wherein the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the records under s. 15 or required to withhold them under s. 21 but was required withhold some personal information under s. 22. Following a request by the third parties, Order F08-07 was issued granting all parties the opportunity to make further argument concerning whether the names of casino employees which appear in the s. 86 reports should be withheld under s. 22. The third parties argued that the names of their employees, including the writers of the s. 86 reports, should not be disclosed. The Ministry must disclose the names of the s. 86 report writers and other employees acting in the course of their employment responsibilities. However, the Ministry is required to withhold the names of employees who are identified in the reports as being threatened or assaulted, who were subject to investigation or who were witnesses to an incident.
The applicant requested certain records in the inquest files of two dozen individuals. The Ministry disclosed the Verdict at Coroner‘s Inquest in each case, together with correspondence on the juries‘ recommendations. It withheld a number of records on the basis that they were excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act or, alternatively, under s. 3(1)(b) of FIPPA. It withheld the rest of the records under ss. 15, 16(1)(b) and 22(1). Section 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act does not apply as it was not in effect at the time of the requests or Ministry‘s decision on access. Section 3(1)(b) applies to records related to coroners‘ inquest-related functions but not to other records, including those reflecting administrative activities. Section 3(1)(c) applies to a handful of records, although Ministry did not claim it. Ministry ordered to reconsider its decision to apply s. 16(1)(b) on the grounds that it failed to exercise discretion. It was not necessary to consider s. 15. Section 22(1) found to apply to many but not all other records. Ministry ordered to disclose certain records to which ss. 3(1)(b) and 22(1) do not apply.
An applicant requested his personal information in the custody of the VPD. The VPD responded by releasing copies of three police occurrence reports involving the applicant, but withholding some information under ss. 15(1)(a), (f) and (l) on the grounds that disclosure could harm a law enforcement matter and the security of courthouses. It also withheld information provided in confidence by the RCMP under s. 16(1)(b) and information that could reasonably be expected to threaten the safety or mental or physical health of others under s. 19(1)(a). As well, it withheld the personal information of third parties collected as part of the investigations on the three files under s. 22(1). The VPD was authorized to refuse to disclose information under ss. 15(1), 16(1) and 19(1). The VPD was required to withhold information under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested access to records related to the VPD's homicide investigation of the 1992 death of a named individual. The VPD initially refused access to all of the records under s. 22(3)(b) of FIPPA. It later added other exceptions and disclosed some records. The VPD is required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested access to records related to the 1989 death of a named individual. The VPD initially withheld all records under s. 22(3)(b). It later added other exceptions and disclosed a few pages. The VPD are required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested access to records related to the “police involved shooting” in 2004 of a named individual. The VPD initially refused access to all of the records under s. 22(3)(b). It later added other exceptions and argued that additional records were excluded under s. 66.1 of the Police Act. It also released some records. The VPD are required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1). Certain other pages are excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 66.1 of the Police Act.
The applicant requested access to records from the APD which disclosed them with some information severed under s. 22. APD is found to have applied s. 22 properly to some information and ordered to disclose other information to which s. 22 does not apply, as it is the applicant’s own personal information and information about APD employees in a work context.
Applicants made access requests to a school district for records relating to complaints they had made about their respective children’s teacher. On reconsideration of Order 04-04 and Order 04-05, the school district’s investigations into the allegations against the teacher were not investigations into a possible violation of law under s. 22(3)(b). The applicants were not entitled to information the disclosure of which would reveal the substance of in camera deliberations by the school district under s. 12(3)(b). They were also not entitled to personal information about the teacher, the disclosure of which would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy under s. 22 and which could not reasonably be severed under s. 4(2). The applicants were otherwise entitled to: non-personal information; their own complaint information against the teacher; and the applicants’ or their children’s personal information, including the statements or opinions of the teacher or others about the applicants and their children and their interactions with the teacher.
The applicant requested records from the College relating to the investigation of a complaint the applicant made against a psychologist. The College is required to refuse disclosure of personal information because it would be an unreasonable invasion of the psychologist’s personal privacy. The personal information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law and also related to the occupational history of the psychologist. The applicant did not rebut the presumptions of unreasonable invasion of personal privacy thus raised.
The applicant requested a copy of a letter a chiropractor sent to the College in response to the applicant’s complaint about him. The College refused to disclose the letter because it said that doing so would be an unreasonable invasion of the chiropractor’s personal privacy. The College is not required to refuse disclosure of the letter. It contains significant amounts of the applicant’s own personal information to which she is entitled to have access. Nor would disclosure of the remainder of the letter unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the third party chiropractor. The applicant already clearly knows much of that information and its disclosure is desirable to subject the College to public scrutiny.
The applicant requested records from the British Columbia Archives relating to events that occurred at Woodlands School in the early 1960’s. The BC Archives properly withheld the requested records under s. 22(1) and was not required to release them under s. 25(1)(b).
The applicant news agency requested access to the transcript and audio tape of 911 calls placed by a named individual, as well as a copy of police reports relating to those calls. Section 25(1) does not require disclosure in the public interest. The VPD is not authorized to withhold the information under s. 15(1)(c), but is required to withhold it under s. 22.
The applicant requested access to records related to his noise complaint about his neighbour. The District refused the applicant full or partial access to the records on the basis of ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), and 22(1) of FIPPA. The District is authorized by s. 13(1) of FIPPA to refuse the applicant access to a memorandum containing advice and recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The District is not authorized by s. 12(3)(b) to refuse the applicant access to the minutes of an in camera meeting because the evidence does not establish that the meeting was properly held in camera. The District is required to refuse the applicant access to information in the remaining records which is strictly that of the third party, but must not refuse access to information which is not personal information or is the applicant’s own personal information.
Applicants requested access to information about themselves in Ministry records. The Ministry withheld some information under s. 77 of the CFCSA. Some information in the only record remaining in dispute falls under s. 77 and must be withheld.
Applicant requested records related to a police investigation into the theft of his vehicle’s licence plates. APD withheld some information under s. 22. Section 22 applies to the information and the APD is required to withhold it.
Applicant requested records from files of two human rights investigators. VCHA disclosed a number of records and withheld and severed others under ss. 14 and 22 of the Act. VCHA found to have applied s. 14 correctly. VCHA found to have applied s. 22 correctly to some information and records but not to others. VCHA ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply.
The applicant sought access to records of a police investigation into a probable homicide. Although the death occurred a number of years ago, the investigation is ongoing and s. 15 authorizes the APD to withhold the information it withheld. Section 16 also authorizes, and s. 22 requires, the APD to withhold information. The APD’s decision is upheld
Applicant requested complaint record provided by third party to BC Hydro. Third party objected to its disclosure, although he later agreed to disclosure of most of record. Section 22 applies to some but not all of remaining withheld information
Applicant requested access to two reports of investigations into complaints the applicant made about her children’s teacher and about bullying of her children by other students. Section 22 requires the School District to refuse to disclose some, but not all, personal information in the reports. Section 21 is not applicable
Applicant requested records related to himself, his children and his ex-wife. Ministry withheld some information and said applicant had no right of access to records related to his children and ex-wife. Ministry correctly applied s. 77 CFCSA, with some minor exceptions and found to have exercised due diligence in searching for responsive records.
Applicant requested 13-year old complaint records. VPD found to have applied s. 19(1)(a) correctly and, with the exception of hospital employee names, s. 22.
Applicant requested review of School District’s decision under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain records. Third-party teacher requested review of School District’s decision to disclose investigator’s report and hearing records in severed form. School District found to have applied s. 8(2)(b) properly and to have correctly decided to sever and disclose report and hearing records.
Parents requested access to two investigation reports regarding a third-party teacher. Teacher requested a review of the School District’s decision to disclose reports in severed form. School District found to have correctly decided to disclose severed reports.
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry provided records to the
applicant but severed some information and withheld other records. Section 22 requires the
Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal information. Ministry found to have applied
s. 22 properly to the severed and withheld records and to have complied with s. 6(1) duty in
searching for records.
The applicant complained to the College about the conduct of a College member.
The College disclosed 140 records from its complaint file, but refused to disclose, in their
entirety, 19 records. The College has failed to establish that s. 3(1)(b), s. 12(3)(b) or s. 15(2)(b)
apply. It is authorized to refuse disclosure of some information under ss. 13(1) and 14 and is
required to refuse disclosure by s. 22(3)(d) and (g). Section 22(1) does not require the College to
refuse the applicant access to her own personal information.
Applicant requested records relating to a complaint she made to the College about
a dentist. The College properly withheld the personal information of third parties withheld under
s. 22. The College performed its s. 6(1) duty to conduct an adequate search for records
responsive to the request
The applicant requested records relating both to herself and to her child, of whom she
no longer has legal care following apprehension of the child and subsequent court orders.
Records had previously been disclosed to the applicant’s various legal counsel three times. The
public body is ordered to make additional disclosure to applicant, based on uncertainty of
evidence regarding previous disclosures. Sections 76 and 77 of the Child, Family and
Community Service Act found to have been properly applied to the information severed or
withheld by the public body.
The applicants obtained an arbitrator’s award, under the Residential Tenancy Act, for rent and utilities owed by their former tenant. They asked the Ministry for her new address to collect the money owed under the award, but the Ministry refused under s. 22(1). None of the s. 22(3) presumed unreasonable invasions of personal privacy applies here. It is relevant that the address was supplied in confidence to the arbitrator, but it is also relevant to a fair determination of the applicants’ legal rights. The Ministry is not required to refuse access, there being no unreasonable invasion of privacy in this case.
The applicant sought access to the names of all individuals who had, in calendar 2000, made complaints to the Law Society about a lawyer’s conduct. The Law Society is not required to disclose this third-party personal information under s. 25(1) and is required to refuse disclosure under s. 22.
The applicant requested the .name of an individual who had approached police about distributing posters about the applicant in the community. Police refused access to third party’s name, first under s. 19(1)(a) and later also under s. 22. Section 19(1)(a) found not to apply, but police found to have withheld name correctly under s. 22.
Applicants sought copies of any letters written to the City by an individual about whom the applicants had made a noise complaint. The City refused access to any portion of the two responsive letters, citing ss. 22(1), 22(2)(f), 22(3)(b) and 22(3)(h). The City later reconsidered its decision at the applicants’ request, but continued to deny access, relying further on ss. 15(1)(a), (f) and 15(2)(b) of the Act. The City also later raised s. 19(1). The City is required to withhold the telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of the letters’ author, but must disclose the rest of the letters to the applicants. None of the exceptions relied on by the City authorizes or requires it to withhold the applicants’ own personal information
As agent for an employer, the CLRA made 30 access requests for initial wage rates, and other financial information, from wage loss claims made by employees of the employer to the WCB. The applications arose out of concerns by employers generally that the WCB had, over a number of years, over-estimated initial wage rates for casual workers. WCB refused to disclose such information, relying on ss. 17 and 22. During the inquiry, the WCB abandoned its reliance on s. 17 and relied only on s. 22. The WCB is not required to refuse disclosure of the wage-related information, as disclosure would not, for a number of reasons, unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the employer’s workers.
Applicant sought copies of interview notes taken by WCB’s accident investigator, and names of witnesses found in the investigator’s accident investigation report, regarding the workplace death of her husband. Investigation was conducted in 1998. After close of inquiry, WCB abandoned reliance on s. 15(1). WCB continued to withhold personal information of some witnesses under s. 22(1). Witnesses’ identities are known to each other and the witnesses are known to the applicant. WCB not required to withhold personal information under s. 22(1), including factual observations. Section 22(5) not applicable.
BCGC employee conducted a field review of activities of a society, NISS, as a result of which NISS’s bingo licence was revoked in accordance with its terms and conditions and BCGC policy. BCGC field review qualified as investigation into a possible violation of law. Personal information in the review report of individuals associated with NISS was therefore compiled, and identifiable, as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law. Review report also contained information respecting the assets and finances of those individuals. Presumed unreasonable invasions of third party privacy not rebutted by applicant.
Applicant, who was formerly investigated by BCSC, sought access to BCSC files about its (now closed) investigation. BCSC was entitled to withhold information that would identify confidential informants and was required to withhold third party personal information compiled as part of its investigation into a possible violation of law.
Applicant sought access to school counsellor’s notes of interviews with applicant’s children. School board required to refuse disclosure of student’s personal information under s. 22(1) and authorized to refuse to disclose same information on the basis of s. 19 (1).
Applicant sought access to records that contained personal information of a woman whom the applicant had pleaded guilty to having harassed criminally, under the Criminal Code, in 1995. Ministry’s refusal to disclose parts of the records authorized by ss.15(1)(g) and 19(1)(a). Ministry required to refuse to disclose personal information under s. 22(1). Not necessary to deal with Ministry’s reliance on s. 16.
An applicant requested information about himself from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under various sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(3)(a) of FIPPA (records to which FIPPA does not apply) did not apply. The adjudicator found that ss. 77(1) (identity of a person who made a child protection report) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during an assessment or investigation) of the CFCSA applied to most, but not all, of the information the Ministry withheld under those sections. The adjudicator found that the Ministry properly applied s. 14 of FIPPA (solicitor-client privilege), and that the Ministry was required to withhold most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
An applicant requested 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 access to records exchanged between Thompson Rivers University (TRU) and its legal counsel regarding an investigation into a workplace complaint a TRU faculty member made about the applicant. TRU disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 19 (disclosure harmful to individual health and safety), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 14 and required to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 22. As TRU’s withheld the same information under s. 19 and s. 22, the adjudicator did not consider s. 19.
An applicant requested 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 asked Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for access to all documents sent to or received by a specific TRU employee that mention the applicant. TRU disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 19(1)(a) (disclosure harmful to individual safety) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU is required to withhold almost all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that TRU was not required or permitted to withhold a small amount of information under any FIPPA exception to disclosure and required TRU to provide this information to the applicant. Section 19(1)(a) was not at issue with respect to any information that the adjudicator required TRU to provide to the applicant.
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 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 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 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 records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
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.
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.
An applicant requested that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records related to a motor vehicle accident. ICBC provided some information in response but withheld other information under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, ICBC’s application of ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (legal advice and litigation privilege), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator also confirmed ICBC’s application of settlement privilege which is a common law exception to disclosure. The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose some information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the BC Securities Commission (BCSC) for records relating to the BCSC’s penalty collection rate, amendments to the Securities Act, and the BCSC’s collection action against the applicant. The BCSC withheld the information in dispute under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(1), 13(1), and 22(1) applied to some, but not all, of the information in dispute and ordered the BCSC to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under those sections. The adjudicator also ordered the BCSC to reconsider its decision to withhold certain information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient evidence that the BCSC considered all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to withhold that information.
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).
An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related
to an external investigation of the University’s treatment of the applicant. The University
disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator
determined that the University was authorized to withhold all the information withheld
under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some information withheld under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered the University to disclose that information.
An applicant requested access to records related to the Metro Vancouver Transit Police’s (MVTP’s) investigation into a dispute in which he was involved. The MVTP disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information and records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the MVTP was required to withhold most of the information under s. 22(1) and ordered the MVTP to disclose the remainder of the information.
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.
The applicant asked the Board of Education of School District No. 43 (School District) to provide him with access to information about his child’s educational supports and assistance. The School District disclosed responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the School District was authorized to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) and was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the School District to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to 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).
An applicant requested records created pursuant to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which requires crown counsel to report adverse judicial comments on a peace officer’s testimony. The Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) withheld information in two of the responsive records under s. 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry also decided that the name of the involved police officer could be disclosed, and notified the police officer’s employer, who requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The applicant and another party were also invited to participate in the inquiry.
An applicant requested 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.
An applicant requested access to a record relating to the investigation of a professional practice complaint he filed against a nurse. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Coastal Health) withheld the entire responsive record under ss. 19 (harm to individual or public safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found Coastal Health properly withheld the record.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
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 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.
An applicant requested access to all records held by the Ministry naming two individuals and created within a specific date range. The Ministry refused access to some information in the responsive records under several exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA but only s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) was in issue during the inquiry. The adjudicator confirmed that the Ministry correctly applied s. 22 to most of the information in dispute but ordered the Ministry to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
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 applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) for records relating to herself and a particular College complaint investigation file. The College provided partial access, withholding information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14. The adjudicator also determined that the College is required or authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information that the College withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
An applicant requested access to records relating to his employment held by the Public Service Agency (PSA). PSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in them under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found PSA was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information withheld under s. 13 (advice or recommendations). The adjudicator also found PSA was required to refuse the applicant access to some, but not all, of the information withheld under s. 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered PSA to disclose the remainder to the applicant.
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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to certain records. FHA disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information in them. The applicant requested a review of this decision. FHA also notified a third party that it planned to disclose some records (Audit Reports) to the applicant. The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision. The adjudicator determined that FHA was not required to refuse to disclose the Audit Reports under s. 21(1) of FIPPA, but that it was required to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of Victoria (University) for access to records containing information about the University's response to an allegation that the applicant breached the University's Sexualized Violence Prevention and Response Policy. The University withheld the majority of information in the records citing s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal information) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the University was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the University to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the implementation of medical assistance in dying practices and procedures by the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). FHA disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information under several exceptions in Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) applied to some, but not all, of the information FHA withheld. The adjudicator ordered FHA to disclose the information which was not covered by ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), or 22(1) of FIPPA.
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.
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.
The applicant made a request to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records about her employment with PHSA. PHSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that PHSA correctly applied ss. 14 and 22(1). As a result, it was unnecessary to consider s. 13.
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.
The applicant requested access to all documents relating to him and his complaint against a named physician. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the College correctly applied s. 22(1).
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the application and appointment of a specific BC Supreme Court master. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under multiple exceptions to access. In some cases, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information in the responsive records under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. Given their finding on s. 22(1), the adjudicator did not need to consider whether s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) also applied to the same information. The Ministry was ordered to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under FIPPA. The Ministry also argued, and the adjudicator confirmed, that some of the responsive records fell outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(3)(c); therefore, the applicant had no right to access those records under FIPPA.
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 a copy of a workplace investigation report prepared for the City of Revelstoke (City). The investigation report was partially about the applicant. The City provided the applicant with a copy of the report, but withheld some information in it under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 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 City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
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 requested records relating to two courses offered at Simon Fraser University (SFU). SFU responded providing access to records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that SFU had correctly applied s. 22(1) to the personal information at issue, but that it had incorrectly applied it to information that was not personal information. The adjudicator ordered SFU to disclose the information that was not personal information.
A journalist requested reviews, reports, audits and analyses concerning COVID-19 outbreaks at two health care facilities of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA). VCHA disclosed some records but withheld information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a system), s. 17(1) (financial harm to the public body) 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 VCHA to disclose the remainder. He found that ss. 15(1)(l) and 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and ordered VCHA to disclose it.
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.
An applicant requested the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) give him access to his registrant file. The College refused access to some of the records and parts of records under several exceptions to disclosure in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and pursuant to s. 26.2 of the Health Professions Act (HPA). The adjudicator finds that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 26.2 of the HPA apply to most of the information in dispute. The adjudicator orders the College to give the applicant access to the information to which those provisions do not apply.
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 employee made two requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA). One was for a report of an investigation into a respectful workplace complaint and associated records. The other was for her personal information relating to job competitions. VIHA withheld some of the information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy of a third party). The adjudicator found that VIHA had correctly applied s. 13(1) to some of the information. The adjudicator ordered VIHA to disclose the rest of the information to which it applied s. 13(1). The adjudicator confirmed VIHA’s decision to apply s. 22(1).
An applicant requested access to records, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the City of North Vancouver (City). The City provided the applicant with access to records but withheld some parts of the records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information under s. 13(1) and found that the City was required to refuse the applicant access to some but not all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the remainder to the applicant.
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry). The Ministry withheld some information under s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) and s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute under those exceptions. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the information in dispute considered under that exception.
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 requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). In response, the Ministry provided 8,936 pages of responsive records, withholding some information under a number of different exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under ss. 13(1), and 14 and some of the information under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) and 18(a). The Ministry was required to withhold some information in dispute under ss. 12(1) and 22(1). However, the Ministry was required to disclose some of the information it withheld under ss. 12(1), 16(1)(a)(iii), 18(a) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 16(1)(c) did not apply to the information considered under that section. The Ministry also withheld some information under common law settlement privilege, but did not provide the records in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to produce the records for the purpose of adjudicating settlement privilege. The applicant also complained that the Ministry did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for text messages and deleted emails.
An applicant requested 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.
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.
The applicant requested access to her own personal information from the Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC) relating to a complaint that she had made against a member of the CPABC. The CPABC
disclosed some records, but withheld information under ss. 12(3) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 15 (harm to law enforcement) and
22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (FIPPA). The CPABC also withheld all of the information under s. 69 of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act (CPAA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(7) of
FIPPA overrides s. 69 of the CPAA. The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(3), 13(1) and 15 of FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some but not all
of the information. The adjudicator ordered the CPABC to disclose some information to the applicant and withhold the remainder.
An applicant asked the Office of the Premier and the BC Public Service
Agency (public bodies) for records related to a leave of absence without pay taken by a former named employee. The public bodies withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The investigator found that s. 22(1) applied to all of the information in dispute and that the public bodies were required to withhold it.
The applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
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.
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. 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(1).
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 made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a cabinet briefing note and candidate profile and declaration for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive record, 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 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 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 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 requested information about short-term rental accommodation
and Airbnb in the City of Vancouver. The City refused access to the requested
information under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 19(1) (harm to individual safety), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to a small amount of the
information under ss. 15(1)(f), 19(1)(a) and 21(1). However, none of the exceptions applied to the rest of the disputed information and the City was ordered to disclose it to the applicant.
An applicant requested records showing the days worked and days absent for a particular employee of the Office of the Premier during two stipulated periods. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) refused to disclose information in the responsive records under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information at issue and ordered the Ministry to withhold the information.
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 requested the full names of the members of a community panel the City of Vancouver (City) convened to make a recommendation about a new
arterial road. The City decided to release all the names of the panelists, despite the objections of one panelist (the Panelist). The Panelist requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold their name. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires the City to withhold the Panelist’s name.
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 a variety of information from Community Living
British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld
other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA).
This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to
ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client
privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no
disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken
together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or
required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.
The applicant made requests under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Citizens’
Services (Ministries) for access to records containing any and all allegations made by a
named individual against the applicant, either in writing or in an audio recording. The
Ministries released the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some records
and information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal
privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested a review of the Ministries’ decisions. The
adjudicator concluded that the Ministries were required to refuse to disclose some of the
disputed information under s. 22(1), including most of two audio recordings, but were
required to disclose the balance of the disputed information to the applicant.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of British Columbia (UBC) for access to an investigation report. The report concerns allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment that the applicant made against a former UBC employee. UBC decided to disclose some of the information in the report. The former UBC employee argued that the disputed information should be withheld under s. 22(1) of FIPPA because its disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy. The adjudicator found the disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy and confirmed UBC’s decision that it is not required under s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose the disputed information to the applicant.
The public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file
under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to
public body’s financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply because the records had been in existence for 10 or more years, so s. 13(3) was engaged. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision, in part, to refuse access under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1) and ordered the public body to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 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 applicant requested access to all records about himself held by BC Transit. BC Transit withheld some information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). This order addresses BC Transit’s decision to withhold the name of one of its employees under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the name of the employee in the circumstances.
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 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.
The applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investigation that led to the well known 2012 Ministry employee firings. The Ministry provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This order considers ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 applied, and that s. 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that she found s. 22 did not apply to.
A journalist requested access to the emails of TransLink’s interim CEO for a specified five-day period in August 2015. TransLink disclosed most of the information, withholding small amounts of information, such as email addresses and a street address. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) did not apply to most of the information in dispute, as it was “contact information”, and ordered TransLink to disclose this information to the journalist. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to the interim CEO’s home telephone number and a small amount of information about a consultant’s employment history, and ordered TransLink to withhold this information.
The applicant requested access to the names and job titles of personnel involved with the Site C Clean Energy Project. The public body refused access to approximately 200 names on a list of individuals under ss. 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the public body was authorized to refuse access to all but four names under s. 19(1)(a) but not under s. 22 because s. 22(4)(e) applied. The public body was required to disclose the four names to the applicant.
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.
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 requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
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.
In Order F20-18, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency) to produce 20 pages of records to the OIPC so that she could make a decision respecting the public body’s application of s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) to those 20 pages.The public body complied, producing the records for the adjudicator’s review. The public body also reconsidered its application of s. 22 to 18 pages of the records and decided to disclose those pages to the applicant. The adjudicator confirmed that s. 22 did not require the public body to withhold those 18 pages and found that s. 22 applied to the information withheld under that section in the remaining two pages.
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.
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.
A professor made two requests for records related to an investigation and to certain communications about him. The University of Victoria gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University of Victoria’s decision to refuse the applicant access under ss. 14 and 22.
The applicant requested documents from BC Hydro relating to contractors who bid for a construction project. BC Hydro withheld some information from two pages under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed BC Hydro’s decision.
A professor requested information about two University investigations into his work conduct. The University gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s decision regarding s. 14. The s. 13(1) and s. 22(1) decisions were confirmed in part. The University was ordered to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
An applicant requested 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.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) to records related to her and her employment for a specified time period. The Ministry withheld information in the records on the basis ss. 13(1), 15(1)(g) and/or s. 22(1) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply to the records since the information did not qualify as advice or recommendations, but the Ministry was authorized to withhold some information under s. 15(1)(g) as it was related to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The adjudicator also determined that disclosing some of the information in dispute would unreasonably invade third party personal privacy and the Ministry was required to withhold it under s. 22(1). Lastly, the adjudicator found the Ministry did not fulfill its obligations under s. 22(5) to provide the applicant with a summary of personal information supplied in confidence about the applicant in a particular record and ordered it to do so.
An applicant requested access to records about a meeting between the former Minister of Natural Gas Development and executives of a company proposing to build a liquefied natural gas processing and export facility. The Ministry disclosed records to the applicant, but withheld some information in them pursuant to exceptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator disagreed with the applicant’s claim that the Ministry was required to disclose the information under s. 25 (disclosure in public interest). The adjudicator also found that ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body) and 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) applied to most of the information but s. 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) did not. The Ministry was ordered to give the applicant access to some of the information in dispute.
An applicant requested that the BC Emergency Health Services (EHS)
disclose records and audio recordings related to his calls to 911. EHS disclosed audio
recordings and an event chronology, but it withheld the names of its employees in the
event chronology under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA.
Disclosing the employee names in the event chronology would also identify the
employees in the audio recordings. The adjudicator found that identifying the EHS
employees in the audio recordings was an unreasonable invasion of their privacy;
therefore, EHS was required to withhold the employee names in the event chronology
under s. 22.
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.
The applicant requested records relating to a complaint that he made about a lawyer employed by the Law Society. The Law Society withheld some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed that the Law Society is authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 14 and required, in part, to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 22.
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.
An interest group requested access to records regarding the Ministry of
Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development’s Wolf Management
Plan. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to a small amount of
information but that ss. 15(1)(f), 16(1)(a)(iii) and 19(1)(a) do not apply to other
information (principally names and email addresses of Ministry employees) and ordered
the Ministry to disclose this information to the applicant.
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.
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 access to records about the preparation of affidavits for a court action. The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA, to either confirm or deny the existence of the records on the grounds that disclosure of their existence would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy. The adjudicator confirmed that the LSBC was authorized to rely on s. 8(2)(b).
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
An applicant requested records related to the discovery of asbestos at a building where he had worked for a time. The Ministry disclosed the records with the exception of a small amount of information related to other employees, which it withheld under s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to this information and ordered the Ministry to withhold it.
An applicant requested access to records of communications between a named physician and the BC Coroners Service (“BCCS”). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy) applied to the withheld information, as it consisted of personal opinions of or about the physician. The adjudicator ordered BCCS to withhold the information.
A journalist requested information about active grievances filed by employees of the Ministry of Health under the collective agreement governing their workplace. The Public Service Agency, which is part of the Ministry of Finance, responded to his request. The Ministry disclosed the number of active grievances for the requested period, but it refused to disclose any other information on the basis that to do so would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The information in dispute was contained in a table. The adjudicator determined that the majority of the information in the table would identify the grievors, so it was their personal information and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of their personal privacy under s. 22. However, severing under s. 4(2) was possible, and the Ministry was ordered to disclose specific information that would not permit identification of the grievors.
The applicant asked 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, 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.
A journalist requested copies of Treasury Board submissions related to funding BC Place renovations. The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) applied to most of the information in dispute and that s. 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) applied to the rest. The adjudicator ordered the public bodies to withhold the information under these sections.
The applicant asked for any records with his name on them. The City disclosed some records, withholding information under ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 16(1)(b) (information received in confidence) and 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The Adjudicator found that all three exceptions applied.
The applicant asked Langara College for grades assigned to him by classmates in a business course, as well as those that his classmates assigned to each other. The College refused access on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the applicant’s classmates under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The Adjudicator agreed, but found that the College was required to give the applicant a summary of his grades in a manner that would not identify his classmates.
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 information regarding the Civil Forfeiture Office. The Ministry withheld the names of the Civil Forfeiture Office’s employees because it believed that disclosure would endanger their lives or physical safety (s. 15(1)(f)) and disclosure could reasonably be expected to threaten their safety or mental or physical health (s.19(1)(a)). The adjudicator found that neither s. 15(1)(f) nor s. 19(1)(a) authorized refusing to disclose the names of the employees. The Ministry also withheld the résumé of the Civil Forfeiture Office’s former director because it believed that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy (s. 22). The adjudicator found that the former director’s résumé must be withheld under s. 22.
The applicant requested information about herself held by BC Ferries, particularly information related to an incident that occurred during her work as an equipment operator. BC Ferries withheld information claiming ss. 13, 15, 19 and 22 of FIPPA exemptions. With the exception of its reliance on s. 13 and a few pages that must be disclosed, BC Ferries properly applied disclosure exemptions to the record.
The applicant requested copies of all resignation letters received by PavCo during the September 2011 to September 2012 operating year. PavCo claimed that it was required under s. 22(1) of FIPPA to refuse disclosure of the letters because they contain personal information that relates to employment, occupational or educational history and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy. PavCo correctly denied the applicant access to the personal information and it must be severed from the remaining portions of the record.
The applicant, a lawyer whose legal practice was under review by the Law Society, requested records related to the review. The Law Society withheld some information from the records under ss. 13, 14 and 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Law Society was authorized to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 13 and all of the information for which it claimed solicitor-client privilege under s. 14. The adjudicator also found that the Law Society must continue to refuse to disclose the personal information it withheld from the records under s. 22(3)(d) because the information relates to the employment, occupational or educational history of third parties and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy.
The applicant made two separate requests for records. The first request was for a copy of a report of an organizational review of the College. The adjudicator found that the College was not justified in withholding information from the report under ss. 12(3)(b) and 13(1) of FIPPA. However, with two small exceptions, the adjudicator found that disclosure of the personal information contained in the report would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA and it may not be disclosed. The applicant’s second request was for records related to the issue of assessing substantially equivalent qualifications of College registrants, and the adjudicator found that the refusal to disclose them was authorized under s. 13(1) of FIPPA.
A criminology professor requested decisions of the College on physicians disciplined for sexually inappropriate behaviour. The College disclosed a copy of an Agreement in which a physician admitted he had inappropriately hugged and kissed a patient and agreed to the College imposing discipline on him. The College previously made a separate public disclosure of the identity of the physician, a description of the charge against him, and the details of the discipline it imposed. The College withheld, under s. 22(1) of FIPPA, all information identifying the complainant and the physician, as well as the medical, educational and employment history of the physician. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the medical information of the complainant and the medical, educational and employment history of the physician, but not to the identity of the physician, the details of the charge or the terms of the discipline it imposed. The adjudicator ordered the College to disclose this information in the Agreement.
A bus driver requested copies of complaints that students made against him regarding his behaviour when transporting them on a school trip. The School District provided him with one record in its entirety and another with all of the information, except for the names of the students, which it withheld under s. 22. The bus driver requested a review in order to obtain access to the names of the students and their contact information. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) of FIPPA applied to the names of the students, because disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the students’ personal privacy.
A journalist requested correspondence between BCLC and a director of a gaming company, who was also a former Chair of the Board of Directors of BCLC. BCLC identified email correspondence between the CEO of BCLC, as he then was, and the director to be responsive to the request and decided to disclose the records to the journalist. BCLC provided notice of the request to the director. The director requested a review on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA and would harm the interests of one of his businesses under s. 21. Section 22 applies only to the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties. The journalist argues that s. 25 of FIPPA requires disclosure of the correspondence as being in the public interest. Section 25 does not apply to any of the information. Section 21 does not apply to any of the information. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to withhold the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties and disclose the remainder of the information.
A physician requested his entire file from the College. In response, the College disclosed over 1,600 pages of records, withholding other information and records under s. 3(1)(c) and s. 22(1). The College is found to have applied s. 3(1)(c) correctly. The College is also found to have applied s. 22(1) correctly to some information. It is ordered to disclose other information to which s. 22(1) was found not to apply, including “contact information” and the applicant’s own personal information.
A nurse requested a copy of a job reference about her that her employer, a physician, had sent to VIHA. VIHA refused access to the record in its entirety under s. 22(2)(f), saying the physician had supplied the reference in confidence. VIHA did not establish that the physician supplied the reference in confidence. It also did not discharge its burden of proving that the applicant was not entitled to have access to her own personal information. VIHA is ordered to disclose the entire record.
A physician whose employment and hospital privileges at the CWHC are presently suspended requested minutes of the meetings of a medical departmental staff committee of the CWHC. The PHSA responded by providing the applicant with records while withholding information under ss. 12(1), 13, 17 and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. The PHSA subsequently ceased to rely on ss. 13 and 17. Section 51 of the Evidence Act applies to some but not all passages. PHSA ordered to process this latter information under FIPPA. Section 22 of FIPPA applies to the medical information of patients and staff. It also applies to the employment history of staff and prospective staff, including evaluations of work, announcement of retirements and new hiring, the passing of exams and immigration issues. Section 22 does not apply to the professional opinions that identifiable physicians expressed relating to the operation of the CWHC and the PHSA is ordered to disclose this information.
An applicant requested details of a settlement that a former employee received from the City. The City withheld the settlement agreement in its entirety under s. 22, on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the former employee’s personal privacy. The applicant subsequently narrowed the request to the amount of money the City paid the former employee, as provided in the settlement agreement. Section 22 does not apply to the information withheld, because disclosure is desirable for public scrutiny. The City is ordered to disclose the financial amount paid to the former employee.
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested records of WorkSafeBC’s investigation into the incident. WorkSafeBC disclosed most of the information, except the identifying information of several individuals. Section 22 found not to apply to most of the withheld information and WorkSafeBC ordered to disclose it.
Widow and union of a worker killed in a workplace incident requested the records of the NWPB investigation into the incident. NWPB disclosed much of the information. Section 22(1) found not to apply to most of the information withheld under that exception and NWPB ordered to disclose it, subject to reconsideration of s. 15(1)g). Third parties found not to be “confidential sources of law enforcement information” and s. 15(1)(d) therefore does not apply. Some information relates to or was used in the “exercise of prosecutorial discretion”. However New Westminster Police Board found not to have exercised discretion properly in applying s.15(1)(g) and is ordered to reconsider its decision.
Three applicants requested access to records related to termination of employees, severance paid and discipline imposed following an investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers into ICBC’s Material Damage Training and Research Facility. An affected third party requested a review of ICBC’s decision to disclose severed records related to him. ICBC’s proposed application of s. 22 found to be correct except for amount of third party’s severance which is ordered disclosed for public scrutiny reasons
A student requested records relating to an investigation that resulted in the College terminating her enrolment in her educational program. The College withheld all records in their entirety under s. 22(1). Section 22(1) does not apply to information solely about the applicant or information of which she was already aware from participating in the conversations and actions documented and from receiving other documentation from the College. Section 22(1) applies to some information solely about third parties and of which the applicant was not already aware.
The applicant requested certain records in the inquest files of two dozen individuals. The Ministry disclosed the Verdict at Coroner‘s Inquest in each case, together with correspondence on the juries‘ recommendations. It withheld a number of records on the basis that they were excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act or, alternatively, under s. 3(1)(b) of FIPPA. It withheld the rest of the records under ss. 15, 16(1)(b) and 22(1). Section 64(2)(c) of the 2007 Coroners Act does not apply as it was not in effect at the time of the requests or Ministry‘s decision on access. Section 3(1)(b) applies to records related to coroners‘ inquest-related functions but not to other records, including those reflecting administrative activities. Section 3(1)(c) applies to a handful of records, although Ministry did not claim it. Ministry ordered to reconsider its decision to apply s. 16(1)(b) on the grounds that it failed to exercise discretion. It was not necessary to consider s. 15. Section 22(1) found to apply to many but not all other records. Ministry ordered to disclose certain records to which ss. 3(1)(b) and 22(1) do not apply.
The applicant, a journalist, sought disclosure of ?bonuses paid to ICBC executives? during a specified period. ICBC refused under s. 22, saying this would unreasonably invade the employees‘ privacy because the bonus amounts were essentially evaluations of the employees‘ performance. ICBC is not required to withhold this information. It is information ?about the…remuneration? of the employees and therefore s. 22(4)(e) provides that its disclosure would not be an ?unreasonable invasion? of the employees‘ ?personal privacy?. The desirability of public scrutiny outweighs any presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy on the basis that the information was about employment history or performance.
A doctor sought records relating to an harassment investigation about him that resulted in the suspension of his hospital privileges. The PHSA argued solicitor-client privilege applied to most of the information and therefore withheld it. Disclosing the remainder, the PHSA contended, would result in the unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy, contrary to s. 22. Legal professional privilege applied to those records for which s. 14 was asserted, and the PHSA was required to withhold the balance of the disputed information under s. 22 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested the résumés of all regional and chief coroners since 1967. The Ministry withheld the records under s. 22(1), on the grounds that disclosure of the employment and educational history of the third parties would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to withhold the requested records.
The applicant requested access to electronic copies of 70 fields of Foundation Skills Assessment student summary data for a certain period, in order to carry out statistical research on the data. The Ministry refused access under s. 22. In his inquiry submission, the applicant offered to reduce the scope of his request to a few fields. The Ministry provided three options for disclosure of the narrower set of data, with Personal Education Numbers (PENs) encrypted, which in its view would not unreasonably invade individual student privacy. Ministry is ordered to disclose data in accordance with the option involving disclosure of the narrowed data with PENs encrypted and populations or cells of fewer than five students suppressed.
The applicant requested access to records related to the VPD's homicide investigation of the 1992 death of a named individual. The VPD initially refused access to all of the records under s. 22(3)(b) of FIPPA. It later added other exceptions and disclosed some records. The VPD is required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested access to records related to the “police involved shooting” in 2004 of a named individual. The VPD initially refused access to all of the records under s. 22(3)(b). It later added other exceptions and argued that additional records were excluded under s. 66.1 of the Police Act. It also released some records. The VPD are required to withhold the remaining third-party personal information under s. 22(1). Certain other pages are excluded from the scope of FIPPA under s. 66.1 of the Police Act.
The applicant requested salary and severance information concerning SkyTrain employees for the years 2002 to 2005. Section 22(4)(e) does not apply to the requested information in this case. However, TransLink, as the public body responsible for the information, is required to disclose it following consideration of all relevant factors under s. 22, including the need for public scrutiny.
Applicant requested access to records from an investigation into human rights complaints against him. The PHSA disclosed some records and withheld others under s. 3(1)(b) and 22 of FIPPA and s. 51 of the Evidence Act. It also took the position that some pages were not in its custody or control. Section 3(1)(b) found not to apply and PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a decision on entitlement to access respecting those pages. Section 51 of the Evidence Act found to apply to other pages. PHSA found to have custody and control of certain pages and ordered to provide applicant with a decision on access regarding those pages. Section 22 found to apply to some information and not to other information. PHSA ordered to provide the applicant with access to information to which s. 22 was found not to apply.
The applicant requested records from a government program that nominates foreign workers for accelerated immigration. The Ministry disclosed the application forms, position descriptions, required qualifications and job offer letters but withheld some information in those records under s. 21 and s. 22. The test for s. 21 was not met. Some information must be withheld under s. 22 to prevent unreasonable invasion of third parties’ personal privacy. Some of the information was not “personal information” and must be disclosed.
The Board is not required to refuse disclosure of the target silhouette that the applicant requested. Given the extensive publicity surrounding the record and its contents, its disclosure would not unreasonably invade the third party’s personal privacy. Even without that publicity, in light of the contents of the inscription, disclosure of the record would not unreasonably invade the third party’s personal privacy
Applicants made access requests to a school district for records relating to complaints they had made about their respective children’s teacher. On reconsideration of Order 04-04 and Order 04-05, the school district’s investigations into the allegations against the teacher were not investigations into a possible violation of law under s. 22(3)(b). The applicants were not entitled to information the disclosure of which would reveal the substance of in camera deliberations by the school district under s. 12(3)(b). They were also not entitled to personal information about the teacher, the disclosure of which would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy under s. 22 and which could not reasonably be severed under s. 4(2). The applicants were otherwise entitled to: non-personal information; their own complaint information against the teacher; and the applicants’ or their children’s personal information, including the statements or opinions of the teacher or others about the applicants and their children and their interactions with the teacher.
The applicant requested records from the College relating to the investigation of a complaint the applicant made against a psychologist. The College is required to refuse disclosure of personal information because it would be an unreasonable invasion of the psychologist’s personal privacy. The personal information was compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law and also related to the occupational history of the psychologist. The applicant did not rebut the presumptions of unreasonable invasion of personal privacy thus raised.
The applicant, a former employee of BC Hydro, requested records relating to himself, a third party and a private company the two had previously shared an interest in. BC Hydro released some records but withheld some in whole or part. BC Hydro was required to disclose some of the records. BC Hydro was also authorized to withhold some of the records under ss. 13(1) and 14 and was required to withhold others under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.
Parents requested access to personal information about themselves and their minor child. School District disclosed most of the requested records, withholding some information under ss. 21 and 22. School District ordered to disclose a few phrases of personal information of one applicant as s. 22 does not apply to it. Section 21 is found not to apply to five pages of records and School District ordered to disclose portions from these pages which are the applicants’ personal information.
The applicant requested a report of an investigation into an incident involving trees which were mistakenly cut down by UBC employees. UBC released the report, but withheld the names and positions of the employees who were involved in the incident and those who were interviewed in the investigation. UBC is required by s. 22 of FIPPA to withhold the names of the employees
Applicant requested access to a document the third party created to describe his workplace interactions with the applicant. Section 22 found to apply to the third party’s personal information in the record and UVic is required to withhold it. It is not reasonable to sever the record as the personal information of applicant and third party is intertwined. This is not an appropriate case to summarize the record.
The applicant requested records from the British Columbia Archives relating to events that occurred at Woodlands School in the early 1960’s. The BC Archives properly withheld the requested records under s. 22(1) and was not required to release them under s. 25(1)(b).
Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56.
Applicant requested access to her personal information in complaint letters. Insurance Council denied access to third-party personal information and to some of applicant’s own personal information - in the form of other people’s opinions about her - under s. 15(2)(b) and s. 22(1). Section 15(2)(b) found not to apply and s. 22(1) found not to apply to applicant’s own personal information, including identities of opinion holders.
Applicant requested access to her personal information in complaint letters. Insurance Council denied access to third-party personal information and to some of applicant’s own personal information—in the form of other people’s opinions about her—under s. 15(2)(b) and s. 22(1). Section 15(2)(b) found not to apply and s. 22(1) found not to apply to applicant’s own personal information, including identities of opinion holders.
Applicant requested records in hands of a named PHSA employee. The PHSA withheld many records on the grounds they are protected by solicitor-client privilege and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. Most records are protected by s. 14 and some information is also protected by s. 22. Small amounts of information are not protected by either exception and must be disclosed.
Applicants requested access to information about themselves in Ministry records. The Ministry withheld some information under s. 77 of the CFCSA. Some information in the only record remaining in dispute falls under s. 77 and must be withheld.
The applicant requested records of four specified individuals. The PHSA disclosed records and applied ss. 14 and 22 to other records and information. It also said that one individual was not its employee and another had no responsive records. The PHSA is found to have correctly withheld information and records under ss. 14 and 22.
Applicant requested records from files of two human rights investigators. VCHA disclosed a number of records and withheld and severed others under ss. 14 and 22 of the Act. VCHA found to have applied s. 14 correctly. VCHA found to have applied s. 22 correctly to some information and records but not to others. VCHA ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply.
Applicant requested various records relating to the SPCA, including a report on the care of animals, which the City withheld under s. 22. Personal information can reasonably be severed from the report and withheld. Remaining information found not to be personal information under s. 22. City ordered to disclose record with personal information severed.
The applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report. The public body provided the majority of the report, severing four lines from the 27 pages under s. 22. The severed information was submitted in confidence to the public body and its disclosure would unfairly expose third parties to harm. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the severed information.
Firefighters’ union requested copy of consultant’s report on labour relations within City fire and rescue service. City disclosed report with portions severed under ss. 17 and 22. Section 17 does not apply. Section 22 applies to some but not all information. City ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply
West Vancouver Police Association requested access to report of Ministry’s review of West Vancouver Police Department. Ministry disclosed report in severed form, withholding portions under s. 22. Ministry ordered to disclose most of withheld information.
Applicant requested access to records related to himself in the public body’s security and infection control areas. PHSA correctly refused access to information under s. 14 and for the most part under s. 22. PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a few items of information withheld under s. 22 and with summary under s. 22(5). A few pages are not in PHSA’s custody or control. Other pages are in PHSA’s control and it is ordered to process them under the Act.
Applicant requested records related to his interactions with a number of named doctors at the PHSA. The PHSA withheld some information under ss. 14 and 22. Applicant objected to decision to withhold information and also questioned the completeness of the PHSA’s response. The PHSA applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases s. 22. The PHSA is ordered to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22. The PHSA did not show that it complied with s. 6(1) in its response and is ordered to do so.
Applicant requested access to two reports of investigations into complaints the applicant made about her children’s teacher and about bullying of her children by other students. Section 22 requires the School District to refuse to disclose some, but not all, personal information in the reports. Section 21 is not applicable
Applicant requested records related to himself. PHSA disclosed large number of records and withheld others under ss. 12(3), 13(1), 14 and 22. Applicant disputed decision to withhold information and also complained about delay in PHSA’s response and records search. PHSA found to have applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases also ss. 13(1) and 22. PHSA found not to have complied with its duties under s. 6(1) and ordered to search again.
Applicant requested records related to his employment and promotion within UBC. UBC disclosed many records, withheld other records and information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22 and said other records were not relevant to the request. Applicant questioned search adequacy and objected to withholding of information. UBC applied s. 14 properly and, with some exceptions, also ss. 13(1) and 22. UBC searched adequately for responsive records, with one minor exception, for which it was ordered to search again. UBC ordered to disclose some information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22 and to provide a response on some records found to be relevant to request.
Section 21(1) does not require the Ministry to refuse access to rate information in three contracts for computer consulting services, proposals preceding the contracts or a score sheet comparing proposals. Section 22(1) requires the Ministry to refuse to disclose some personal information in the proposals preceding the contracts.
Applicant requested review of School District’s decision under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain records. Third-party teacher requested review of School District’s decision to disclose investigator’s report and hearing records in severed form. School District found to have applied s. 8(2)(b) properly and to have correctly decided to sever and disclose report and hearing records.
Parents requested access to two investigation reports regarding a third-party teacher. Teacher requested a review of the School District’s decision to disclose reports in severed form. School District found to have correctly decided to disclose severed reports.
The Ministry disclosed information in audit reports relating to three physicians’
services that were billed to the Medical Services Plan, but refused to disclose some information
from those reports. The information is personal information the disclosure of which would be an
unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the audited physicians under s. 22(1). The
Ministry is not required to disclose information under s. 25(1).
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry provided records to the
applicant but severed some information and withheld other records. Section 22 requires the
Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal information. Ministry found to have applied
s. 22 properly to the severed and withheld records and to have complied with s. 6(1) duty in
searching for records.
Applicant requested records related to her academic appeal. UBC provided records,
withholding other records and information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13(1), 14 and 22. UBC found to have
applied ss. 3(1)(b), and 14 properly and, with one exception, s. 22 as well. UBC ordered to
disclose some personal information related to applicant. Section 13(1) found not to apply in all
cases and UBC ordered to disclose draft letters.
The applicant sought from the public body information that might confirm the
applicant’s suspicions that the public body was systematically biased against him. The public
body withheld from applicant under s. 19 certain information, on the basis of a perceived threat
by the applicant to the safety of public body employees. Public body submitted evidence of
applicant’s past behaviour, but such evidence was insufficient to satisfy the test of reasonable
expectation of threat set out in s. 19(1). Applicant’s personal information withheld under s. 22 is
ordered disclosed. Other s. 22 severances upheld relating to applicant’s family members.
The applicant requested records about herself and her daughter. Under ss. 21 and 22,
the VSB withheld some information and records. The VSB is found to have applied s. 22
properly and is ordered to prepare a s. 22(5) summary.
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry severed some information.
Applicant requested review of response, saying certain records missing. Ministry found to
have complied with s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and to have applied ss. 13(1) and 22
properly to some information.
The applicant sought access to various Law Society records related to complaints he
had made about various lawyers. Order 02-01 and Order No. 260-1998 addressed many of the
records in dispute here and issue estoppel is found to apply to information dealt with in those
decisions. In the case of some but not all of the information in other records, the Law Society is
authorized to refuse to disclose information subject to s. 14 and is required to refuse to disclose
third-party personal information protected by s. 22.
The Ministry is required by s. 22(1), in this case, to withhold names of private
security firm employees, since s. 22(3)(d) applies and s. 22(4)(i) does not. Not necessary to
decide whether s. 19(1)(a) applies.
The applicant, a former Ministry employee, requested records related to an
investigation into his conduct. The Ministry provided severed copies of the investigation report
and severed copies of interview transcripts, but said it could not provide copies of the audiotapes
of those interviews. Section 22 requires the Ministry to refuse access to third-party personal
information. The Ministry has not complied with its duty under ss. 4(2) and 9(2) regarding
copies of the audiotapes or their severing and must provide the applicant with copies of the
audiotapes, severed as appropriate
Through her legal counsel, the applicant made a request to the public body for
records regarding a complaint she had made respecting mental health services she received from
the public body. The public body’s limited severing of personal information from a consultant’s
report that had been prepared in response to the complaint is upheld under s. 22. The public body
also discharged its duty to the applicant to conduct an adequate search for records.
The applicant in this case is the daughter of a woman whose attempt to revisit
a mediated settlement of her previous access request to SFU was dealt with in Order 01-16. In
Order 01-16, it was held that SFU need not process the woman’s new access request. The evidence
establishes that the daughter’s access request, made 10 days after Order 01-16 was issued, was
made on her mother’s behalf, as an attempt to circumvent Order 01-16. This is an abuse of process
and will not be allowed. The principle of res judicata also applies. SFU’s decision on the merits
of the daughter’s access request, as an arm’s-length applicant, is upheld.
Applicant requested records related to his employment with the AIBC and to records
related to two other employees. The AIBC withheld several records under ss. 14, 17 and 22. Section 14 found to apply to one record. Section 17 found not to apply. Section 22(4)(e) found to apply to the employees’ employment contracts, job descriptions, salary and benefit information, which is ordered disclosed. Sections 22(1) and 22(3)(d) and (g) found to apply to some withheld
information.
The applicant requested access to records showing pass/failure and similar assessment rates of assessors in a program the Justice Institute offers. The Justice Institute is not required by s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose the assessors’ names in association with the pass/failure and other information. In the circumstances of this case, disclosure of their names (their personal information) is not disclosure of employment or occupational history. Nor would it disclose the identities of individuals who have supplied confidential personal evaluations or recommendations or any individual’s personal evaluations. Accordingly, no s. 22(3) presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy applies and there is otherwise no unreasonable invasion of personal privacy
Applicant requested copies of reports of outside professional activities of named faculty members. UBC provided severed copies, withholding under ss. 22(1) and 22(3)(d) information on their outside professional activities, use of UBC resources, dates and time spent. UBC found to have applied s. 22 properly to information on outside professional activities, dates and time spent. Section 22 found not to apply to information on any use of UBC resources.
The applicant, who had complained to the Ministry, his employer, about his supervisor’s conduct, sought access to interview notes and other records related to the Ministry’s investigation of the complaint. The Ministry is required by s. 22 to withhold third-party personal information and the applicant’s personal information, which is inextricably intertwined with third-party personal information. The Ministry must, however, create a summary of the withheld information under s. 22(5).
The applicant requested records relating to the College’s accidental disclosure, in 1997, of prescription-related information of two hospital patients. The College initially failed to conduct a reasonable search for records, but corrected that failure by searching again for records during mediation. The College is authorized to withhold a legal opinion under s. 14. The College is required by s. 22(1) to withhold third party personal information.
As agent for an employer, the CLRA made 30 access requests for initial wage rates, and other financial information, from wage loss claims made by employees of the employer to the WCB. The applications arose out of concerns by employers generally that the WCB had, over a number of years, over-estimated initial wage rates for casual workers. WCB refused to disclose such information, relying on ss. 17 and 22. During the inquiry, the WCB abandoned its reliance on s. 17 and relied only on s. 22. The WCB is not required to refuse disclosure of the wage-related information, as disclosure would not, for a number of reasons, unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the employer’s workers.
Applicant sought access to letter sent by a principal to a coach at her daughter’s school, regarding an incident involving her daughter. NVSD initially refused to disclose any part of the letter but later disclosed some. NVSD is required to withhold coach’s personal information consisting of evaluations of, or opinions about, her actions related to the incident. Other information cannot be withheld, either because it is not anyone’s personal information or because its disclosure would not unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the coach or other individuals.
Applicant, who is one subject of a letter written to UBC by another student, is entitled to access to more information than UBC disclosed. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld by UBC, including the applicant’s own personal information, but s. 22(1) requires UBC to withhold third parties’ personal information.
Applicant sought copies of interview notes taken by WCB’s accident investigator, and names of witnesses found in the investigator’s accident investigation report, regarding the workplace death of her husband. Investigation was conducted in 1998. After close of inquiry, WCB abandoned reliance on s. 15(1). WCB continued to withhold personal information of some witnesses under s. 22(1). Witnesses’ identities are known to each other and the witnesses are known to the applicant. WCB not required to withhold personal information under s. 22(1), including factual observations. Section 22(5) not applicable.
Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1), as information does not consist of advice or recommendations. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld under that section, but s. 22(1) applies, in part on the basis of s. 22(3)(a), to some of the same information. Section 22(3)(d) does not apply to information about ministry employees’ work-related actions, so s. 22(1) does not apply to that information. Ministry found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information found in records relating to SFU’s review of a third party’s employment performance or associated records. Public interest disclosure not required. Personal information was not covered by s. 22(4). SFU was required to disclose minor amounts of information that was not covered by s. 22(1).
Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information relating to employment history or educational history as it relates to qualification of third parties for specific employment positions. Applicant also not entitled to personal information of third parties relating to their resignation from employment. Public body found to have fulfilled its duties under s. 6(1).
Applicant sought access to Ministry records about him. Applicant not entitled to see some of the third party personal information withheld from the record in issue. Third party personal information consisted of employment history of third party. Disclosure would be unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal privacy.
Applicant sought access to school counsellor’s notes of interviews with applicant’s children. School board required to refuse disclosure of student’s personal information under s. 22(1) and authorized to refuse to disclose same information on the basis of s. 19 (1).
An applicant requested information about himself from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under various sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA). The adjudicator found that s. 3(3)(a) of FIPPA (records to which FIPPA does not apply) did not apply. The adjudicator found that ss. 77(1) (identity of a person who made a child protection report) and 77(2)(b) (information supplied in confidence during an assessment or investigation) of the CFCSA applied to most, but not all, of the information the Ministry withheld under those sections. The adjudicator found that the Ministry properly applied s. 14 of FIPPA (solicitor-client privilege), and that the Ministry was required to withhold most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
An applicant requested access to records about employee exit interviews conducted by the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (Commission). The Commission disclosed some responsive records but withheld information from them and other records in their entirety pursuant to s. 22(1) (disclosure harmful to personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the Commission was required to withhold almost all the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Commission to disclose the information it was not required to withhold to the applicant.
An applicant requested 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 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 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.
The applicant requested records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
The applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about his interactions with outpatient services. The Vancouver Island Health Authority (Island Health) disclosed responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information from them under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires Island Health to refuse to disclose the information.
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.
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 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 requested that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to records related to a motor vehicle accident. ICBC provided some information in response but withheld other information under several FIPPA exceptions to access. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, ICBC’s application of ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (legal advice and litigation privilege), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator also confirmed ICBC’s application of settlement privilege which is a common law exception to disclosure. The adjudicator ordered ICBC to disclose some information to the applicant.
An applicant requested that the Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health) provide access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to her deceased mother’s (the deceased) medical records. Fraser Health refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make the request on behalf of the deceased under s. 5(1)(b) of FIPPA and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation (Regulation). Fraser Health also refused the applicant access to the records under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased. The adjudicator further found that disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to all medical records relating to his mother (the deceased). FHA refused to disclose the requested records on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the deceased in accordance with s. 5 of FIPPA. FHA also refused him access to the records on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the deceased’s personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator concluded that the applicant was not acting on behalf of the deceased and disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy.
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).
An applicant requested records created pursuant to the Crown Counsel Policy Manual, which requires crown counsel to report adverse judicial comments on a peace officer’s testimony. The Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) withheld information in two of the responsive records under s. 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry also decided that the name of the involved police officer could be disclosed, and notified the police officer’s employer, who requested a review of this decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The applicant and another party were also invited to participate in the inquiry.
An applicant requested 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.
An applicant requested access to a record relating to the investigation of a professional practice complaint he filed against a nurse. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (Coastal Health) withheld the entire responsive record under ss. 19 (harm to individual or public safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found Coastal Health properly withheld the record.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to a residential property. The City of Burnaby (City) withheld information in the responsive records under several FIPPA exceptions to access. In some cases, the City applied one or more FIPPA exceptions to the same information. The City also argued some information was not responsive to the applicant’s access request and, therefore, could be withheld. The applicant requested the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) review the City’s decision to refuse access. The adjudicator found the information withheld by the City as “non-responsive” was in fact responsive to the access request and ordered the City to disclose some of that information. The adjudicator also determined the City could not withhold any of the information at issue under s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences). However, the adjudicator decided the City properly applied s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) to some of the information withheld from the responsive records. The City was ordered to disclose the information that the adjudicator determined could not be withheld under a FIPPA exception to access.
An applicant requested access to all records held by the Ministry naming two individuals and created within a specific date range. The Ministry refused access to some information in the responsive records under several exceptions to disclosure in FIPPA but only s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) was in issue during the inquiry. The adjudicator confirmed that the Ministry correctly applied s. 22 to most of the information in dispute but ordered the Ministry to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
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 applicant made two access requests under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) for records relating to herself and a particular College complaint investigation file. The College provided partial access, withholding information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision under s. 14. The adjudicator also determined that the College is required or authorized to withhold most, but not all, of the information that the College withheld under ss. 13(1) and 22(1).
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to certain records. FHA disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information in them. The applicant requested a review of this decision. FHA also notified a third party that it planned to disclose some records (Audit Reports) to the applicant. The third party requested a review of FHA’s decision. The adjudicator determined that FHA was not required to refuse to disclose the Audit Reports under s. 21(1) of FIPPA, but that it was required to refuse to disclose most of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
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).
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.
The applicant made a request to the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records about her employment with PHSA. PHSA disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that PHSA correctly applied ss. 14 and 22(1). As a result, it was unnecessary to consider s. 13.
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).
The applicant requested access to all documents relating to him and his complaint against a named physician. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) disclosed the responsive records to the applicant but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the College correctly applied 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).
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the application and appointment of a specific BC Supreme Court master. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) provided the applicant with partial access to the requested records, but withheld information under multiple exceptions to access. In some cases, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information in the responsive records under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. Given their finding on s. 22(1), the adjudicator did not need to consider whether s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) also applied to the same information. The Ministry was ordered to provide the applicant with access to the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under FIPPA. The Ministry also argued, and the adjudicator confirmed, that some of the responsive records fell outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(3)(c); therefore, the applicant had no right to access those records under FIPPA.
An applicant made a request 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 a copy of a workplace investigation report prepared for the City of Revelstoke (City). The investigation report was partially about the applicant. The City provided the applicant with a copy of the report, but withheld some information in it under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 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 City was authorized to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator determined that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 13(1). Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was required to refuse to disclose most, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
An applicant requested records related to a 2015 meeting attended by a representative of Destination British Columbia (DBC). DBC released the responsive records, but withheld some information in them under ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 21(2) (information gathered for determining tax liability or collecting a tax), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose the information it withheld under s. 21(2). The adjudicator determined that DBC was required to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). Finally, the adjudicator confirmed DBC’s decision to withhold a small amount of information under s. 13(1).
An applicant requested records relating to two courses offered at Simon Fraser University (SFU). SFU responded providing access to records but withheld some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that SFU had correctly applied s. 22(1) to the personal information at issue, but that it had incorrectly applied it to information that was not personal information. The adjudicator ordered SFU to disclose the information that was not personal information.
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.
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.
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).
The applicant requested all of the records relating to her treatment at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital. The Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 22(1)
(unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information in
dispute but ordered Interior Health to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
An applicant requested access to records, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), from the City of North Vancouver (City). The City provided the applicant with access to records but withheld some parts of the records under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose the information under s. 13(1) and found that the City was required to refuse the applicant access to some but not all of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the remainder to the applicant.
The applicant requested records about himself from his employer, BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS). BCEHS provided 6,121 pages of responsive records, but withheld information in the records under ss. 3(3)(h) (scope of FIPPA), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). BCEHS also withheld a small amount of information under common law settlement privilege. The adjudicator confirmed BCEHS’s decisions with respect to ss. 3(3)(h), 13(1), 14, and (with one exception) s. 22. The adjudicator ordered BCEHS, under s. 44(1)(b), to produce the records withheld under settlement privilege for the purpose of deciding this issue on the merits.
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry). The Ministry withheld some information under s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) and s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute under those exceptions. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the information in dispute considered under that exception.
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).
A journalist requested records related to the BCCS’s investigation into the death of a third party. The BCCS initially withheld all of the records under s. 64(1) of the Coroners Act. The BCCS then disclosed the records but withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of 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 ordered the BCCS to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under s. 22(1).
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 asked the Office of the Premier and the BC Public Service
Agency (public bodies) for records related to a leave of absence without pay taken by a former named employee. The public bodies withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The investigator found that s. 22(1) applied to all of the information in dispute and that the public bodies were required to withhold it.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to an agreement between the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) and two named individuals, along with other related documents. The Ministry withheld the entire agreement on the basis it was
protected by settlement privilege, but provided the applicant with partial access to other records by withholding information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the agreement on the basis of settlement privilege, but that it was required to withhold the agreement under s. 22(1). The adjudicator also found the Ministry was required to withhold most of the remaining information at issue under s. 22(1). The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested the Ministry of Health provide access to Medical
Services Commission meeting minutes for a two-year period. The Ministry refused access under multiple Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions
to disclosure. The adjudicator found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party’s personal
privacy) applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 21(1) (harm to third party’s business interests) did not apply at all. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required or authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13, 21(1)
and 22(1).
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.
An applicant requested from the University of British Columbia (UBC) a series of human resources records relating to their employment. 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(1).
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 made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a cabinet briefing note and candidate profile and declaration for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive record, 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 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 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 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 requested information about short-term rental accommodation
and Airbnb in the City of Vancouver. The City refused access to the requested
information under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement), 19(1) (harm to individual safety), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized or required to refuse access to a small amount of the
information under ss. 15(1)(f), 19(1)(a) and 21(1). However, none of the exceptions applied to the rest of the disputed information and the City was ordered to disclose it to the applicant.
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 records showing the days worked and days absent for a particular employee of the Office of the Premier during two stipulated periods. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) refused to disclose information in the responsive records under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information at issue and ordered the Ministry to withhold the information.
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.
The applicant requested the full names of the members of a community panel the City of Vancouver (City) convened to make a recommendation about a new
arterial road. The City decided to release all the names of the panelists, despite the objections of one panelist (the Panelist). The Panelist requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold their name. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires the City to withhold the Panelist’s name.
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).
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records related to the BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo), the Evergreen Line and the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) provided partial access to the records by withholding information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 16(1)(a) (harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (disclosure harmful to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some of the information at issue under ss. 12(1), 14 and 22(1), but was not authorized or required to withhold the remaining information in dispute.
The applicant made requests under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Citizens’
Services (Ministries) for access to records containing any and all allegations made by a
named individual against the applicant, either in writing or in an audio recording. The
Ministries released the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some records
and information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal
privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested a review of the Ministries’ decisions. The
adjudicator concluded that the Ministries were required to refuse to disclose some of the
disputed information under s. 22(1), including most of two audio recordings, but were
required to disclose the balance of the disputed information to the applicant.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of British Columbia (UBC) for access to an investigation report. The report concerns allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment that the applicant made against a former UBC employee. UBC decided to disclose some of the information in the report. The former UBC employee argued that the disputed information should be withheld under s. 22(1) of FIPPA because its disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy. The adjudicator found the disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy and confirmed UBC’s decision that it is not required under s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose the disputed information to the applicant.
The public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file
under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to
public body’s financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply because the records had been in existence for 10 or more years, so s. 13(3) was engaged. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision, in part, to refuse access under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1) and ordered the public body to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
An applicant requested access to all records about himself held by BC Transit. BC Transit withheld some information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). This order addresses BC Transit’s decision to withhold the name of one of its employees under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the name of the employee in the circumstances.
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.
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 journalist requested access to the emails of TransLink’s interim CEO for a specified five-day period in August 2015. TransLink disclosed most of the information, withholding small amounts of information, such as email addresses and a street address. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) did not apply to most of the information in dispute, as it was “contact information”, and ordered TransLink to disclose this information to the journalist. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to the interim CEO’s home telephone number and a small amount of information about a consultant’s employment history, and ordered TransLink to withhold this information.
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 access to correspondence between a named employee of the City of Vancouver (City) and three other individuals. The City disclosed 31 pages of emails, withholding some information under ss. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the City to disclose this information. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered the City to disclose the information to which she found s. 22(1) does not apply. The applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) requires disclosure of the withheld information but the adjudicator found that it does not.
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.
An applicant requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (College). The College withheld information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the College applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the College was required to withhold some information under ss. 13 and 14, but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13, 14 and 22 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(5) was not applicable since a third party did not confidentially supply any information about the applicant. However, the adjudicator ordered the College to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient explanation and evidence that the College exercised its discretion on proper grounds and considered all relevant factors.
An applicant requested information related to a specific motor vehicle accident claim from ICBC. ICBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several exceptions to access in FIPPA. At inquiry, the adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision to apply these FIPPA exceptions to most of the information in dispute and ordered ICBC to disclose the rest to the applicant.
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.
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.
The applicant corporation made a request to the City of Parksville (City)
for records relating to the City's decision to undertake litigation against the applicant.
The City refused to disclose portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal local
body confidences under s.12(3)(b), advice or recommendations under s. 13(1), solicitor
client privileged information under s. 14 or would unreasonably invade third party privacy
under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the City could withhold some but not all of the
information under ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1) and 14 of FIPPA. As a result of these findings, it
was not necessary for the adjudicator to consider whether s. 22 applied.
The applicant made a request to the District of Sechelt for all correspondence, reports or notes relating to incidents that occurred on his property and that were the subject of complaints by third parties. The District of Sechelt refused to disclose portions of the records under ss. 15(1) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute and that ss. 15(1)(c) and (d) did not apply.
The applicant requested records that relate to the City of Vancouver’s decision to discipline the applicant at work. The City of Vancouver refused access to portions of the records on the basis that it would reveal advice or recommendations under s. 13 and that it would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22. The adjudicator found that the City is authorized to withhold all of the information it withheld under s.13. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 applies to some of the information but that that the City is required to disclose the remaining information.
A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance he received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The adjudicator held that the information came within s. 22(4)(e), and therefore could not be withheld under s. 22.
A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance she received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The adjudicator held that the information came within s. 22(4)(e), and therefore could not be withheld under s. 22.
A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance he received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The third party argued that the payment was not “remuneration” within the meaning of s. 22(4)(e) because it was not severance pay. The adjudicator held that the payment was a form of remuneration, and, because it came within the scope of s. 22(4)(e), it could not be withheld under s. 22.
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.
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
The applicant 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, 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.
A journalist requested copies of Treasury Board submissions related to funding BC Place renovations. The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences) applied to most of the information in dispute and that s. 22(1) (harm to personal privacy) applied to the rest. The adjudicator ordered the public bodies to withhold the information under these sections.
The applicant asked Langara College for grades assigned to him by classmates in a business course, as well as those that his classmates assigned to each other. The College refused access on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the applicant’s classmates under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The Adjudicator agreed, but found that the College was required to give the applicant a summary of his grades in a manner that would not identify his classmates.
The applicant requested the BC Coroners Service file on its investigation
into the death of a named individual. The Coroners Service disclosed some records but denied access to others under ss. 64(1)(a) and 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act and s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 64(1)(a) or 64(2)(a) of the Coroners Act apply to most of the records. The adjudicator also found that s. 22 of FIPPA applies to a number
of records, with the exception of three records that were provided to the Coroners Service by the applicant. The adjudicator ordered the Coroners Service to disclose those three records to the applicant.
The applicant requested information about herself held by BC Ferries, particularly information related to an incident that occurred during her work as an equipment operator. BC Ferries withheld information claiming ss. 13, 15, 19 and 22 of FIPPA exemptions. With the exception of its reliance on s. 13 and a few pages that must be disclosed, BC Ferries properly applied disclosure exemptions to the record.
The applicant requested copies of all resignation letters received by PavCo during the September 2011 to September 2012 operating year. PavCo claimed that it was required under s. 22(1) of FIPPA to refuse disclosure of the letters because they contain personal information that relates to employment, occupational or educational history and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy. PavCo correctly denied the applicant access to the personal information and it must be severed from the remaining portions of the record.
A journalist requested records relating to medications for the treatment of Adult Macular Degeneration. The Ministries withheld portions of the requested information under ss. 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 of FIPPA. The Assistant Commissioner ordered the public bodies to disclose parts of the withheld information, authorized the public bodies to withhold parts of the withheld information under s. 13, 14, 16, and 17 of FIPPA, and required the public bodies to refuse to disclose parts of the withheld information under ss. 21 and 22 of FIPPA.
The applicant requested video recordings relating to the time that she was detained at the Vancouver City Jail. On judicial review of a previous order in which some recordings were ordered released with some redactions, the Supreme Court of British Columbia held that the facial image of a Correctional Officer in the recording was third party personal information and remitted back to the Commissioner the question of whether the release of that information would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s privacy. The applicant made no submissions on the remittal. The applicant has not met the burden of showing that the release of the information would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of the third party’s privacy.
Applicant requested records related to her academic appeal. UBC provided records,
withholding other records and information under ss. 3(1)(b), 13(1), 14 and 22. UBC found to have
applied ss. 3(1)(b), and 14 properly and, with one exception, s. 22 as well. UBC ordered to
disclose some personal information related to applicant. Section 13(1) found not to apply in all
cases and UBC ordered to disclose draft letters.
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 her deceased mother’s medical records from Fraser Health Authority (Fraser Health). Fraser Health refused the applicant’s access request, taking the position that the applicant was not acting on behalf of her mother under s. 5(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulation, and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. During the inquiry, Fraser Health disclosed some information in the responsive records. The adjudicator determined that the applicant was not acting on behalf of her mother, and that disclosing the deceased’s personal information would be an unreasonable invasion of her personal privacy under s. 22(1).
An applicant requested access to records exchanged between Thompson Rivers University (TRU) and its legal counsel regarding an investigation into a workplace complaint a TRU faculty member made about the applicant. TRU disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information and records under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 19 (disclosure harmful to individual health and safety), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that TRU was authorized to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 14 and required to withhold all the information it withheld under s. 22. As TRU’s withheld the same information under s. 19 and s. 22, the adjudicator did not consider s. 19.
An applicant requested 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.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Forests (Ministry) for records related to the Ministry’s inspection of the applicant’s property. The Ministry responded to the applicant and withheld some records and information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined that the Ministry is authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information and records it withheld under s. 14 and required to refuse to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1). It was not necessary to consider s. 13(1).
An applicant requested access to all records relating to his child from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). The Ministry refused to disclose information on the basis that the applicant was not authorized to make an access request on behalf of the child in accordance with s. 5(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and s. 3(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulation (Regulation), and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy under s. 22(1). The adjudicator determined that the applicant was authorized to make the request on behalf of the child and that the Ministry was required to refuse access to some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22(1).
The applicant 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 applicant made a request to the Ministry of Education and Child Care (Ministry) for access to records related to the Ministry’s investigation into the applicant’s employment. The Ministry refused access to some information on the basis that FIPPA did not apply to this information or that it fell under one or more of FIPPA’s exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that s. 61(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act (personal note, communication or draft decision of a decision-maker) applied to some information and, therefore, that FIPPA did not apply. The adjudicator also found that the Ministry had properly applied ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) to withhold some of the information in dispute. However, she found that the Ministry was not authorized to withhold any information under s. 13(1). The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to give the applicant access to the information it was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose.
The applicant requested records related to her employment from the Board of Education of School District No. 10 Arrow Lakes (the District). The District disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) and various other sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the District’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 22(1) in part and ordered it to disclose the remaining information.
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.
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 applicant requested all minutes of City Council and committee meetings, emails, and social media messages that included any variation of her name from the City of Pitt Meadows (the City). The City disclosed the records but withheld some information under ss. (13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (harm to third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision under ss. 13(1) and 14 in full, and its decision under ss. 22(1) in part, and ordered the City to disclose the information it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1) to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the BC Securities Commission (BCSC) for records relating to the BCSC’s penalty collection rate, amendments to the Securities Act, and the BCSC’s collection action against the applicant. The BCSC withheld the information in dispute under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(1), 13(1), and 22(1) applied to some, but not all, of the information in dispute and ordered the BCSC to disclose the information it was not authorized or required to withhold under those sections. The adjudicator also ordered the BCSC to reconsider its decision to withhold certain information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient evidence that the BCSC considered all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to withhold that information.
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).
An applicant requested from a past employer (University) all records related
to an external investigation of the University’s treatment of the applicant. The University
disclosed some information but withheld the rest under ss. 13(1) (advice or
recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator
determined that the University was authorized to withhold all the information withheld
under s. 14 but was not authorized or required to withhold some information withheld under ss. 13(1) or 22(1) and ordered the University to disclose that information.
An applicant requested access to records related to the Metro Vancouver Transit Police’s (MVTP’s) investigation into a dispute in which he was involved. The MVTP disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information and records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator determined that the MVTP was required to withhold most of the information under s. 22(1) and ordered the MVTP to disclose the remainder of the information.
The 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.
The applicant asked the Board of Education of School District No. 43 (School District) to provide him with access to information about his child’s educational supports and assistance. The School District disclosed responsive records but withheld some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the School District was authorized to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 13(1) and was required to withhold some of the information in dispute under s. 22(1). The adjudicator ordered the School District to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to the applicant.
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.
An applicant made a request to the College for records related to a complaint the applicant filed with the College in 2018. The College provided most of its records related to the complaint to the applicant but withheld some information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the College could not withhold some of the information under s. 22 because it was either not personal information, or it fell within the scope of s. 22(4). The adjudicator confirmed that the College was required to withhold the balance of the information in dispute under s. 22 and was authorized to withhold a small amount of additional information under s. 13.
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).
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 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.
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of Victoria (University) for access to records containing information about the University's response to an allegation that the applicant breached the University's Sexualized Violence Prevention and Response Policy. The University withheld the majority of information in the records citing s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal information) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found the University was required to withhold some, but not all, of the information it withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the University to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
An applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the implementation of medical assistance in dying practices and procedures by the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). FHA disclosed some information in the responsive records but withheld the remaining information under several exceptions in Part 2 of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that ss. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of privacy) applied to some, but not all, of the information FHA withheld. The adjudicator ordered FHA to disclose the information which was not covered by ss. 12(3)(b), 13(1), or 22(1) of FIPPA.
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.
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 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).
A journalist requested reviews, reports, audits and analyses concerning COVID-19 outbreaks at two health care facilities of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA). VCHA disclosed some records but withheld information under s. 13(1) (advice and recommendations), s. 15(1)(l) (harm to the security of a system), s. 17(1) (financial harm to the public body) 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 VCHA to disclose the remainder. He found that ss. 15(1)(l) and 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and ordered VCHA to disclose it.
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.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the City of Vancouver (City) for access to correspondence about the City’s decision to issue a formal public apology regarding the Komagata Maru incident. The City decided to release most of the information in the records, despite the objections of a third party (Third Party) whose personal information appears in the records. The Third Party requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold all of the records. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) does not apply to the information in dispute and ordered the City to disclose that information to the applicant.
The applicant requested all of the records relating to her treatment at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital. The Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) disclosed the responsive records but withheld some information under s. 22(1)
(unreasonable invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to some of the information in
dispute but ordered Interior Health to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Finance (Ministry). The Ministry withheld some information under s. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 12(1) and s. 22 applied to some but not all of the information in dispute under those exceptions. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the information in dispute considered under that exception.
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 requested records relating to the McAbee Fossil beds from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (Ministry). In response, the Ministry provided 8,936 pages of responsive records, withholding some information under a number of different exceptions to disclosure. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under ss. 13(1), and 14 and some of the information under ss. 16(1)(a)(iii) and 18(a). The Ministry was required to withhold some information in dispute under ss. 12(1) and 22(1). However, the Ministry was required to disclose some of the information it withheld under ss. 12(1), 16(1)(a)(iii), 18(a) and 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 16(1)(c) did not apply to the information considered under that section. The Ministry also withheld some information under common law settlement privilege, but did not provide the records in dispute. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to produce the records for the purpose of adjudicating settlement privilege. The applicant also complained that the Ministry did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to conduct a further search for text messages and deleted emails.
The applicants made separate requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) for access to records containing information about them relating to their operation of a foster home. The Ministry withheld the information in dispute in this inquiry under ss. 15(1)(d) (harm to law enforcement) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The Ministry also decided that some records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(c). The adjudicator determined that some of the disputed records are beyond the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(c). Regarding the other records, the adjudicator determined that the Ministry is required to withhold most, but not all, of the disputed information under s. 22(1) and that, given this finding, it is not necessary to also consider s. 15(1)(d).
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 asked the Office of the Premier and the BC Public Service
Agency (public bodies) for records related to a leave of absence without pay taken by a former named employee. The public bodies withheld some information in the records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy). The investigator found that s. 22(1) applied to all of the information in dispute and that the public bodies were required to withhold it.
An applicant requested access, under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to an agreement between the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) and two named individuals, along with other related documents. The Ministry withheld the entire agreement on the basis it was
protected by settlement privilege, but provided the applicant with partial access to other records by withholding information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator determined the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the agreement on the basis of settlement privilege, but that it was required to withhold the agreement under s. 22(1). The adjudicator also found the Ministry was required to withhold most of the remaining information at issue under s. 22(1). The Ministry was ordered to disclose the information that it was not required to withhold under s. 22(1).
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 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 made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for a cabinet briefing note and candidate profile and declaration for a named individual within a specified date range. In response, the Ministry of Finance disclosed some information in the responsive record, 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 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 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 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 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 records showing the days worked and days absent for a particular employee of the Office of the Premier during two stipulated periods. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) refused to disclose information in the responsive records under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the information at issue and ordered the Ministry to withhold the information.
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.
The applicant requested the full names of the members of a community panel the City of Vancouver (City) convened to make a recommendation about a new
arterial road. The City decided to release all the names of the panelists, despite the objections of one panelist (the Panelist). The Panelist requested that the OIPC review the City’s decision, arguing that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) requires the City to withhold their name. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) requires the City to withhold the Panelist’s name.
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.
An applicant requested records from the City of Vancouver (City) under the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) related to three “rezoning
enquiries” covering the period from April 2016 to January 2019. The City disclosed records, severing information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 15(1)(l)
(harm to security of property or system), 17(1) (harm to economic interests of public
body) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The applicant disputed
that severing and also complained that the City interpreted his request too narrowly and
did not conduct an adequate search for the responsive records. The adjudicator found
that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some information. The adjudicator also found that
s. 13(1) did not apply to other information and ordered the City to disclose it. It was not
necessary to consider s. 13(1) for some information or to consider ss. 17(1) and 15(1)(l) at all. Finally, the adjudicator found that the City complied with its duty under s. 6(1) to
interpret the request and conduct an adequate search.
The applicant requested a variety of information from Community Living
British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in response, but withheld
other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA).
This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to
ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client
privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no
disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The adjudicator found that, taken
together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and s. 46 of the AGA authorized or
required CLBC to withhold much of the information in dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose this information to the applicant.
The applicant made requests under the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Citizens’
Services (Ministries) for access to records containing any and all allegations made by a
named individual against the applicant, either in writing or in an audio recording. The
Ministries released the responsive records to the applicant, but withheld some records
and information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal
privacy) of FIPPA. The applicant requested a review of the Ministries’ decisions. The
adjudicator concluded that the Ministries were required to refuse to disclose some of the
disputed information under s. 22(1), including most of two audio recordings, but were
required to disclose the balance of the disputed information to the applicant.
The applicant, the Garth Homer Society, requested information about itself
from Community Living British Columbia (CLBC). CLBC provided some information in
response, but withheld other information pursuant to several provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) as well as s. 46 of the Adult Guardianship Act (AGA). This order deals with CLBC’s decision to refuse access to information pursuant to ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 13(1) (advice and recommendations),
14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA and s. 46 (no disclosure of person who reports abuse) of the AGA. The
adjudicator found that, taken together, ss. 3(1)(c), 13(1), 14 and 22(1) of FIPPA and
s. 46 of the AGA authorized or required CLBC to withhold much of the information in
dispute. However, the adjudicator also decided ss. 13(1) and 22(1) did not apply to some of the information CLBC withheld under those sections and ordered CLBC to disclose
this information to the applicant.
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the 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.
An applicant requested access to all records about himself held by BC Transit. BC Transit withheld some information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). This order addresses BC Transit’s decision to withhold the name of one of its employees under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the name of the employee in the circumstances.
The applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investigation that led to the well known 2012 Ministry employee firings. The Ministry provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This order considers ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 applied, and that s. 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that she found s. 22 did not apply to.
An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal information. The public body refused access to information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that ss. 13,14 and 22 applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 17 did not. The adjudicator ordered the public body to disclose a small amount of information to the applicant.
The applicant requested access to the names and job titles of personnel involved with the Site C Clean Energy Project. The public body refused access to approximately 200 names on a list of individuals under ss. 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the public body was authorized to refuse access to all but four names under s. 19(1)(a) but not under s. 22 because s. 22(4)(e) applied. The public body was required to disclose the four names to the applicant.
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 requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
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 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 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 requested documents from BC Hydro relating to contractors who bid for a construction project. BC Hydro withheld some information from two pages under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed BC Hydro’s decision.
A journalist requested various reports which allegedly relate to a named third party. The British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to neither confirm nor deny that the requested records exist. The adjudicator found that BCLC was authorized under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny that the requested records exist.
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.
A journalist requested access to records about the Site C project. BC Hydro disclosed some records but refused to disclose information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) and 22 (harm to personal privacy). The adjudicator found that ss. 17 applied to some of the information, but ss. 19(1)(a) and 22 did not apply to any information. It was not necessary to consider whether s. 14 applied. BC Hydro was ordered to give the applicant access to some of the information.
An applicant requested that the BC Emergency Health Services (EHS)
disclose records and audio recordings related to his calls to 911. EHS disclosed audio
recordings and an event chronology, but it withheld the names of its employees in the
event chronology under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA.
Disclosing the employee names in the event chronology would also identify the
employees in the audio recordings. The adjudicator found that identifying the EHS
employees in the audio recordings was an unreasonable invasion of their privacy;
therefore, EHS was required to withhold the employee names in the event chronology
under s. 22.
The applicant requested records relating to a complaint that he made about a lawyer employed by the Law Society. The Law Society withheld some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed that the Law Society is authorized to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 14 and required, in part, to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 22.
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.
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.
A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance he received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The adjudicator held that the information came within s. 22(4)(e), and therefore could not be withheld under s. 22.
A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance she received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The adjudicator held that the information came within s. 22(4)(e), and therefore could not be withheld under s. 22.
A third party objected to the City’s decision to disclose the third party’s name and the amount of severance he received from the City on the basis that s. 22 (harm to personal privacy) applied. The third party argued that the payment was not “remuneration” within the meaning of s. 22(4)(e) because it was not severance pay. The adjudicator held that the payment was a form of remuneration, and, because it came within the scope of s. 22(4)(e), it could not be withheld under s. 22.
Three employees of the City of Nanaimo requested records related to the reclassification of several specified jobs. The City denied access to the records in their entirety, under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), s. 17(1) (financial harm to public body) and s. 22(1) (harm to third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to only some of the information. The adjudicator ordered the City to disclose the records to which these exceptions did not apply.
An applicant requested 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 applicant requested year-end pay statements of a former and current CAO of the City of Rossland. The City withheld the pay statements on the basis that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of some information in the pay statements because it was not an unreasonable invasion of privacy, including information about remuneration under s. 22(4)(e) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the City must continue to withhold some information that under s. 22(3) is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy if disclosed.
The applicant requested records about a named employee of the BC public service. The request was responded to by the BC Public Service Agency, part of the Ministry of Finance, which withheld the responsive records from the employee’s personnel file on the basis disclosure was an unreasonable invasion of privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The adjudicator ordered disclosure of the information about the named employee’s position, functions and remuneration because it would not be an unreasonable invasion of the employee’s privacy under s. 22(4)(e) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry must continue to withhold the remaining information because there is a presumption that disclosure of the information would be an unreasonable invasion of the named employee’s privacy under s. 22(3) and the presumption was not rebutted by any factors, including those in s. 22(2) of FIPPA.
The applicant requested records related to his involvement as a suspect in a police investigation. The adjudicator found the VPD was required to withhold most of the information on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy under s. 22(1) of FIPPA. The VPD was not required to withhold information relating to the police officers’ actions.
The applicant requested a copy of a severance agreement between the City and its former Corporate Administrator. The City provided the total severance figure but declined to provide the severance agreement itself, on the basis that the records were subject to solicitor-client privilege and that their disclosure would unreasonably invade the former Corporate Administrator’s privacy. The A/Senior Adjudicator found that because the communication at issue was between the City’s lawyer and a third party, it was not subject to solicitor-client privilege. Further, the information in the record constituted remuneration under s. 22(4)(e) and, therefore, its disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third party privacy.
A journalist requested correspondence between BCLC and a director of a gaming company, who was also a former Chair of the Board of Directors of BCLC. BCLC identified email correspondence between the CEO of BCLC, as he then was, and the director to be responsive to the request and decided to disclose the records to the journalist. BCLC provided notice of the request to the director. The director requested a review on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA and would harm the interests of one of his businesses under s. 21. Section 22 applies only to the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties. The journalist argues that s. 25 of FIPPA requires disclosure of the correspondence as being in the public interest. Section 25 does not apply to any of the information. Section 21 does not apply to any of the information. The adjudicator ordered BCLC to withhold the information about the director’s medical history and some information about other third parties and disclose the remainder of the information.
An applicant requested details of a settlement that a former employee received from the City. The City withheld the settlement agreement in its entirety under s. 22, on the grounds that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the former employee’s personal privacy. The applicant subsequently narrowed the request to the amount of money the City paid the former employee, as provided in the settlement agreement. Section 22 does not apply to the information withheld, because disclosure is desirable for public scrutiny. The City is ordered to disclose the financial amount paid to the former employee.
The applicant requested salary and consulting fees paid to a TransLink employee. These payments are considered remuneration of an employee of a public body for the purpose of s. 22(4)(e). Disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the third party, and, therefore, TransLink must disclose the requested information.
The applicant requested salary information for all union-exempt employees for a two-year period and other payment information concerning a former union-exempt TransLink employee. These payments are considered remuneration of an employee of a public body for the purpose of s. 22(4)(e). Disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of the personal privacy of the third party, and, therefore, TransLink must disclose the requested information.
Three applicants requested access to records related to termination of employees, severance paid and discipline imposed following an investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers into ICBC’s Material Damage Training and Research Facility. An affected third party requested a review of ICBC’s decision to disclose severed records related to him. ICBC’s proposed application of s. 22 found to be correct except for amount of third party’s severance which is ordered disclosed for public scrutiny reasons
The applicant, a journalist, sought disclosure of ?bonuses paid to ICBC executives? during a specified period. ICBC refused under s. 22, saying this would unreasonably invade the employees‘ privacy because the bonus amounts were essentially evaluations of the employees‘ performance. ICBC is not required to withhold this information. It is information ?about the…remuneration? of the employees and therefore s. 22(4)(e) provides that its disclosure would not be an ?unreasonable invasion? of the employees‘ ?personal privacy?. The desirability of public scrutiny outweighs any presumed unreasonable invasion of personal privacy on the basis that the information was about employment history or performance.
The applicant requested salary and severance information concerning SkyTrain employees for the years 2002 to 2005. Section 22(4)(e) does not apply to the requested information in this case. However, TransLink, as the public body responsible for the information, is required to disclose it following consideration of all relevant factors under s. 22, including the need for public scrutiny.
The applicant requested a report of an investigation into an incident involving trees which were mistakenly cut down by UBC employees. UBC released the report, but withheld the names and positions of the employees who were involved in the incident and those who were interviewed in the investigation. UBC is required by s. 22 of FIPPA to withhold the names of the employees
The applicant requested a copy of the report evaluating a research proposal that he submitted for funding through Forestry Innovation Investment. The Ministry provided the applicant with the requested record, which included comments made by the individuals who had reviewed the proposal, but severed the names of the reviewers under s. 22 of FIPPA. The Ministry also later claimed that s. 17 applied and authorized it to sever the names of the reviewers. The statutory presumption under s. 22(3) does not apply in this case. However, there are relevant factors under s. 22(2) that weigh against disclosure of the reviewers’ names and s. 22(1) does apply. Since the Ministry is required by s. 22(1) to sever the names of the reviewers, s. 17 need not be considered.
Applicant requested his ICBC file related to his claim regarding the loss of his motorhome and its contents by fire. ICBC disclosed some records but refused access to others, including fire investigation records. Sections 14, 15(1)(a) and 17(1) found not to apply. Section 22(1) found not to apply to a small amount of information.
Applicant requested records from files of two human rights investigators. VCHA disclosed a number of records and withheld and severed others under ss. 14 and 22 of the Act. VCHA found to have applied s. 14 correctly. VCHA found to have applied s. 22 correctly to some information and records but not to others. VCHA ordered to disclose information to which s. 22 does not apply.
The applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report. The public body provided the majority of the report, severing four lines from the 27 pages under s. 22. The severed information was submitted in confidence to the public body and its disclosure would unfairly expose third parties to harm. The public body is required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the severed information.
Applicant requested access to records related to himself in the public body’s security and infection control areas. PHSA correctly refused access to information under s. 14 and for the most part under s. 22. PHSA ordered to provide applicant with a few items of information withheld under s. 22 and with summary under s. 22(5). A few pages are not in PHSA’s custody or control. Other pages are in PHSA’s control and it is ordered to process them under the Act.
Applicant requested records related to his interactions with a number of named doctors at the PHSA. The PHSA withheld some information under ss. 14 and 22. Applicant objected to decision to withhold information and also questioned the completeness of the PHSA’s response. The PHSA applied s. 14 correctly and in some cases s. 22. The PHSA is ordered to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22. The PHSA did not show that it complied with s. 6(1) in its response and is ordered to do so.
Applicant requested complaint record provided by third party to BC Hydro. Third party objected to its disclosure, although he later agreed to disclosure of most of record. Section 22 applies to some but not all of remaining withheld information
Applicant requested access to two reports of investigations into complaints the applicant made about her children’s teacher and about bullying of her children by other students. Section 22 requires the School District to refuse to disclose some, but not all, personal information in the reports. Section 21 is not applicable
Applicant requested 13-year old complaint records. VPD found to have applied s. 19(1)(a) correctly and, with the exception of hospital employee names, s. 22.
Applicant requested records related to himself. Ministry severed some information.
Applicant requested review of response, saying certain records missing. Ministry found to
have complied with s. 6(1) duty in searching for records and to have applied ss. 13(1) and 22
properly to some information.
The applicant in this case is the daughter of a woman whose attempt to revisit
a mediated settlement of her previous access request to SFU was dealt with in Order 01-16. In
Order 01-16, it was held that SFU need not process the woman’s new access request. The evidence
establishes that the daughter’s access request, made 10 days after Order 01-16 was issued, was
made on her mother’s behalf, as an attempt to circumvent Order 01-16. This is an abuse of process
and will not be allowed. The principle of res judicata also applies. SFU’s decision on the merits
of the daughter’s access request, as an arm’s-length applicant, is upheld.
Applicant requested records related to his employment with the AIBC and to records
related to two other employees. The AIBC withheld several records under ss. 14, 17 and 22. Section 14 found to apply to one record. Section 17 found not to apply. Section 22(4)(e) found to apply to the employees’ employment contracts, job descriptions, salary and benefit information, which is ordered disclosed. Sections 22(1) and 22(3)(d) and (g) found to apply to some withheld
information.
Applicant sought access to letter sent by a principal to a coach at her daughter’s school, regarding an incident involving her daughter. NVSD initially refused to disclose any part of the letter but later disclosed some. NVSD is required to withhold coach’s personal information consisting of evaluations of, or opinions about, her actions related to the incident. Other information cannot be withheld, either because it is not anyone’s personal information or because its disclosure would not unreasonably invade the personal privacy of the coach or other individuals.
Applicant requested records related to calculation of benefits expected after WCB decision. WCB refused disclosure of most information, under ss. 13, 14, 17 and 22. Sections 14 and 17 found not to apply, as WCB has not established that solicitor client privilege applies nor that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm its financial interests. Section 13(1) found not to apply, except for one item, as records do not contain advice or recommendations. Because s. 22(4)(e) applied to information the WCB had withheld under s. 22, that information must be disclosed except for one item to which section 22(3)(g) applies. No waiver of privilege found.
Ministry not entitled to withhold information from internal e-mails and other records under s. 13(1), as information does not consist of advice or recommendations. Section 19(1)(a) does not apply to information withheld under that section, but s. 22(1) applies, in part on the basis of s. 22(3)(a), to some of the same information. Section 22(3)(d) does not apply to information about ministry employees’ work-related actions, so s. 22(1) does not apply to that information. Ministry found to have fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty in searching for responsive records.
Applicant not entitled to access to third party personal information found in records relating to SFU’s review of a third party’s employment performance or associated records. Public interest disclosure not required. Personal information was not covered by s. 22(4). SFU was required to disclose minor amounts of information that was not covered by s. 22(1).