|
|
|
|
|
|
The applicant, the Western
Canada Wilderness Committee
(WCWC), requested a public
interest fee waiver under
section 75(5)(b) for records
requested from the Ministry
of Land, Water and Air Protection,
now the Ministry of Environment
(Ministry). The Ministry
denied the fee waiver. Upon
review, the Adjudicator
found that the Ministry
was correct in finding that
the records did not relate
to a matter of public interest
and confirmed the fee that
the Ministry assessed to
the WCWC for the requested
records.
|
|
The applicant requested access to records from the District of Sparwood (the District) related to his noise complaint about his neighbour. The District released some of the records, but withheld others under sections 12(3)(b), 13(1), and 22(1) of the FOIPP Act. Upon review, the adjudicator found the District was not authorized by section 12(3)(b) to refuse the applicant access to the minutes of an in camera meeting, because the evidence did not establish the meeting was properly held in camera. The District was, therefore, ordered to release the meeting minutes to the applicant. The adjudicator authorized the District to withhold a portion of a memorandum withheld under section 13(1), but ordered the release of the remainder. Finally, the adjudicator required the District, under section 22(1), to refuse the applicant access to third party personal information in an investigative file, but also required the District to provide the applicant access to a portion of the file in severed form.
|
|
The applicant requested information from the Interior Health Authority (the Authority) related to the number of abortions performed in the Interior Health District (the District) in 2004. The Authority disclosed the requested aggregate information on the number of abortions performed in the District, but refused to disclose information related to specific health care facilities under section 22.1 of the Act. Upon review, the adjudicator found the Authority had met the requirements of section 22.1 and authorized it to refuse access to the withheld information.
|
|
The applicant, a news agency, requested access to the transcript and audio tape of 911 calls placed by a public figure, as well as a copy of the police reports relating to those calls from the Vancouver Police Department (the Department or VPD). The applicant argued under section 25(1) that disclosure of the records was in the public interest. The Department denied access under sections 22 and 15(1)(c) of the Act. Upon review, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (Commissioner) found the records did not support a compelling need for public interest disclosure under section 25(1). The Commissioner also found the Department was not authorized to withhold the information under section 15(1)(c), but is required to withhold it under section 22.
|
|
The applicant requested a copy of a legal opinion, related to a proposed amendment to a local zoning bylaw, from the Village of Sayward (the Village). Parts of the legal opinion were publicly disclosed during an open council meeting, in a publicly available report and referred to by the Mayor in a letter to a local newspaper. The applicant, therefore, argued the Village had waived its solicitor client privilege on the opinion. Upon review, the adjudicator found that, while the Village had disclosed parts of the legal opinion to the public, section 14 still applied to the undisclosed remainder. The adjudicator, therefore, confirmed the decision of the Village to refuse the applicant access to the remaining part of the opinion which had not been released.
|
|
The applicant sought access to certain sections of response training materials from the BC Lottery Corporation (BCLC). BCLC refused to release any of the information to the applicant under section 17 of the FOIPP Act. Upon review, the adjudicator found neither section 17(1) or (2) applied to the records in dispute, and required BCLC to give the applicant access to the information.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
from Elections British Columbia
(Elections BC) records relating
to her termination of employment
under the Election Act as
an electoral officer. Elections
BC declined to provide access
to the records on the basis
that the records were excluded
from the Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy
Act (FOIPP Act) under section
3(1)(c). Upon review, the
Commissioner found that
the Act did not apply to
the disputed records.
|
|
The applicant, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund (Defence Fund or SLDF), requested from the Ministry of Environment (the Ministry) a public interest waiver of the estimated fee of $24,060. The Ministry later recalculated the fee estimate to be $172, 947.50 and granted a waiver of 5 percent of the estimated fee. Upon review, the adjudicator found the Ministry had not applied section 75(5)(b) in a reasonable manner, and ordered the Ministry to discharge its duty to make a decision on whether or not to excuse the fees.
|
|
The applicant, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee (WCWC), requested from the Ministry of Environment (the Ministry) a public interest waiver of the estimated fee of $395.00. The Ministry initially denied the request, but later granted partial fee waivers in stages. Upon review, the adjudicator found the Ministry had not applied the public interest fee waiver test appropriately, and ordered the Ministry to refund the remaining $65.00 fee as remedy under section 58(3)(c).
|
|
|
In 2004, the Board of Education
of School District No. 75
( Mission) (“Board”) began
using the “Gallup TeacherInsight
Assessment” (“Assessment”),
an online computer-based
assessment tool, to screen
applicants for teaching
positions. In 2005 the British
Columbia Teachers’ Federation
and the Mission Teachers’
Union (collectively, “Complainants”)
filed a complaint to the
Office of the Information
and Privacy Commissioner
alleging that the Board’s
collection of personal information
through the Assessment contravened
sections 26, 30, 30.1 and 32
of the Act. Upon review,
the Commissioner found that
section 26(c) of the Act authorized
the Board to collect personal
information using the Assessment;
however, the Board was not
authorized to collect the
social insurance numbers
of the applicants through
the Assessment. The Commissioner
also found that the Board
had complied with sections 30,
30.1 and 32 of the Act.
|
|
The Campbell River Indian Band (the Band) requested from the public body formerly known as Land and Water British Columbia Inc. ((Land and Water); now integrated with the Ministry of Agriculture and Land) records related to its proposed casino project. Land and Water released some of the records and withheld and severed others under sections 12(1), 13(1), 14, 16, 17 and 22. Upon review, the adjudicator required Land and Water to withhold information under section 12(1), and authorized it to withhold information under section 13(1). With some exceptions, Land and Water was also authorized to withhold information under section 14. Land and Water was ordered to disclose some information it withheld under sections 14 and 22(1). Information withheld by Land and Water under sections 16 and 17 of the Act was found to fall under sections 12(1) or 13(1) and therefore, no decision was necessary on the former.
This order was issued concurrently with Orders F07-12, F07-13 and F07-14. |
|
The Campbell River Indian Band (the Band) requested from the Ministry of Finance (the Ministry) records related to its proposed casino project. The Ministry released some of the records and withheld and severed others under sections 12(1), 13(1), 14, 16, 17 and 22. Upon review, the adjudicator required the Ministry to withhold information under section 12(1) and authorized it to withhold information under sections 13(1) and 14(1). The Ministry was ordered to disclose some information it withheld under section 17 and the information it withheld under section 22. The Ministry was also ordered to conduct another search for responsive records. No decision was necessary for section 16, as the Ministry had applied it to information to which the adjudicator found other exceptions applied.
This order was issued concurrently with Orders F07-11, F07-13 and F07-14.
|
|
The Campbell River Indian Band (the Band) requested from the Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) records related to its proposed casino project. The Ministry released some of the records and withheld and severed others under sections 12(1), 13(1), 14, 16(1), 17 and 22(1). Upon review, the adjudicator found the Ministry had properly withheld information under sections 12(1) and 13(1) and, with some exceptions, section 14. The Ministry was ordered to disclose some information it withheld under sections 14 and 16(1). No decision was necessary on section 22, as the Ministry later provided a complete copy of the record to which the provision applied to the Band. Further, no decision was necessary for section 17, as the Ministry applied it to information which the adjudicator found fell under one or more of sections 12, 13 and 14.
This order was issued concurrently with Orders F07-11, F07-12 and F07-14.
|
|
The Campbell River Indian Band (the Band) requested from the Ministry of Public Safety and Attorney General (the Ministry) records related to its proposed casino project. The Ministry released some of the records, and withheld information and records under sections 12, 13, 14, 17 and 22 of the Act. Upon review, the adjudicator found the Ministry had properly withheld information under sections 13(1) and 22(1), and some information withheld under section 14. The Ministry was ordered to disclose some information it withheld under sections 14 and 21(1). While noted as an issue in this inquiry, section 12 was not considered by the adjudicator, as no evidence of its application was found in the disputed records. In addition, no decision was necessary on section 17, as the Ministry later provided a complete copy of the record to which the provision applied to the Band.
This order was issued concurrently with Orders F07-11, F07-12 and F07-13. |
|
The applicant, a union representing Aramark Canada Ltd. employees (the Union), requested access to the contract, presentation and business case records between Aramark Canada Ltd. (Aramark) and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (the Authority). The Authority disclosed sections of these records, but denied access to the remainder under sections 17(1) and 21(1) of the Act. Upon review, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (the Commissioner) found section 17(1) did not authorize, and section 21(1) did not require, the Authority to refuse to give the Union access to the requested records. The Commissioner required the Authority to give the Union access to the entirety of the contract, presentation and business case records. |
|
The applicant requested records from the British Columbia Archives (Archives), related to events which occurred at Woodlands School in the early 1960’s. Archives disclosed some of the disputed records while releasing others in severed form, leaving 80 pages of the file fully undisclosed. Upon review, the adjudicator found Archives properly withheld the requested records under section 22(1), and was not required to release them under section 25(1)(b). |
|
The applicant requested a copy of his son’s suicide note from the Office of the Chief Coroner (the Coroner). The Coroner denied the applicant access to the note under section 22 of the Act. Upon review, the adjudicator found the disclosure of the note would constitute an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, and required the Coroner under section 22 to withhold the note from the applicant.
|
|
The applicant requested, from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (the Ministry), access to submissions by funeral home operators, relating to potential changes to funeral laws and regulations. The Ministry released some of the requested records, but withheld others under sections 12(1) and 25(1) of the Act. Upon review, the adjudicator found the Ministry was required under section 12 to refuse the applicant access to the information severed in the records. The Ministry was also not required by section 25(1) to disclose the records in the public interest.
|
|
The applicant requested a copy of a letter a doctor wrote to the College of Physicians and Surgeons (the College) in response to the applicant’s complaint about the doctor. The College disclosed part but not all of the letter, withholding the remainder under sections 19(1)(a) and 22(1) of the Act. Upon review, the adjudicator authorized the College, under section 19(1)(a), to refuse to disclose the disputed portions of the record to the applicant. In light of the adjudicator’s finding on section 19(1)(a), the adjudicator determined it was not necessary to consider whether or not the College was required, under section 22(1), to withhold the record in dispute.
|
|
|
|
|
Applicant requested records
from the Ministry of Labour
and Citizens’ Services (Ministry)
relating to an Employment
Standards Tribunal matter
in which the applicant was
involved. This Order
addresses whether the Ministry
is authorized to withhold
information under section
14. In particular,
it looks at the waiver of
privilege. The Commissioner
found that the Ministry
is authorized to refuse
access to the records it
withheld under section 14
as there was no waiver of
privilege respecting the
records. Costs and review
procedures were also addressed.
|
|
|
Applicant requested records
form the Ministry of Water,
Lands and Air Protection.
This Order addresses whether
the Ministry made every
reasonable effort to respond
without delay as required
under section 6(1) and whether
the Ministry failed to respond
in accordance with the requirements
of section 7. The
Ministry failed to respond
in accordance with the requirements
of section 7 of the Freedom
of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act (the
Act) and consequently breached
its’ duty under section
6(1).
|
|
|
|
|
The applicant requested
a report of the Portland
Housing Society (the Society). The
British Columbia Housing
Management Commission (the Commission)
withheld the record in full,
under sections 13(1) and
21(1) of the Act. Upon review,
the adjudicator found that
the Commission was authorized
by section 13(1) and required
by section 21(1) to withhold
some of the information
in the report, and ordered
the Commission to disclose the
remainder of the information.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
two reports of investigations
held by School District
No. 68 (School District).
The School District provided
several individuals with
third party notice under
s. 23 of the Act. One of
the third parties, a teacher,
did not agree to the disclosure
of the information contained
in the report. The School
District determined that
it would release the personal
information despite the
teacher’s objection. A review
of this decision was initiated
by the teacher. Upon review,
the adjudicator found that
s. 22 applied and required
the School District to refuse
to disclose some, but not
all, personal information
in the reports to the applicant.
|
|
The applicant requested a number of types of information and records related to her complaint to the British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association (the Association) about one of its registrants, a veterinarian. The Association released some of the requested records, but withheld the remainder on the grounds that they were excluded under ss. 3(1)(h) or, in the alternative, that ss. 8(2), 13, 15 and 22 applied to the records. Upon review, the adjudicator found ss. 3(1)(h), 13 and 22 did not apply but s. 15(1)(a) did apply and, therefore, authorized the Association to withhold the disputed records. The adjudicator decided not to deal with the application of s. 8(2) on account of her findings on s. 15(1)(a).
|
|
The applicant requested access to records, relating to himself, in the security and infection control areas of the Provincial Health Services Authority (the Authority). The Authority refused the applicant access to the information under s. 14 and s. 22. Upon review, the adjudicator found the Authority was authorized to refuse access to the information held under s. 14. The Authority was, however, ordered to release some of the withheld information under s. 22, and provide a summary of the applicant’s personal information under s. 22(5). A few of the withheld pages were deemed by the adjudicator not to be in the control of the Authority; however, other withheld pages are under its control, and the Authority was ordered to process them under the FOIPP Act.
|
|
The applicant requested access to records related to his interactions with a number of named doctors at the Provincial Health Services Authority (the Authority). The Authority released some information, but withheld the remainder under ss. 14 and 22. The applicant objected to the Authority’s decision to withhold information, and also questioned the completeness of the Authority’s response. Upon review, the adjudicator found the Authority applied s. 14 correctly and, in some cases, s. 22. The Authority was ordered to disclose some of the information it withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator also found the Authority did not show that it complied with s. 6(1) in its response, and was ordered to do so.
|
|
The applicant requested access from the College of Psychologists of British Columbia (College) to records pertaining to himself. The College denied the applicant access to the records under ss. 3(1)(b), 3(1)(h), 12(3)(b), 13(1), 14, 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Three of the records were minutes of three in camera meetings of the Inquiry Committee of the College. A final record was a printout showing a list of dates and notes about the applicant’s complaint file. Upon review, the adjudicator:
• required the College to give the applicant access to the information it withheld under ss. 3(1)(b), 3(1)(h), 15(1)(a), 15(2)(b) and 22;
• released some of the information the College withheld under s. 12(3)(b); and
• ordered the College to reconsider its decision to refuse access to information withheld under s. 12(3)(b).
As a result of the above decisions, the adjudicator did not find an order necessary respecting ss. 13(1) or 14. |
|
The applicant, the Kwantlen Student Association, requested from Kwantlen University College (the College) a copy of the contract for management of cafeteria services between the College and a named food services company. The College disclosed a copy of the contract in severed form. The applicant requested full access to the severed information. The College denied the request under s. 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Upon review, the adjudicator found the severed information did not meet the requirements of ss. 21(1)(b) or 21(1)(c)(i) and required the College to provide access to the information.
|
|
The applicant requested access to records from the City of Vancouver (the City) related to a development application for a multiple-story tower. The City released all the responsive records, but withheld one document under s. 13(1) of the FOIPP Act. Upon review, the adjudicator found the record to be advice and recommendations, and that it was properly withheld under s. 13. The adjudicator authorized the City to withhold the document.
|
|
The applicant, an adult
adoptee, requested records
showing her birth father’s
name from the Ministry of
Children and Family Development
(Ministry). The Ministry
refused access to the records
under section 22 of the
Act. Upon review, the Adjudicator
found that the disputed
information fell under section
22 of the Act and required
the Ministry to refuse the
applicant access to the
records.
|
|
The applicant requested
records related to a property.
The public body responsible,
Land and Water British Columbia
(LWBC), responded nine months
later. Upon review, the
Adjudicator found that LWBC
had not fulfilled its responsibilities
under sections 6(1) and
7. The Adjudicator
ordered LWBC, under
section 58(3), to refund
fees that the applicant
paid. This order is a
companion to Orders
F05-22 and F05-23 which
were issued concurrently
with this order. All
three concern the same
applicant and related
records, although the
public bodies are
different.
|
|
The applicant requested
records related to a property
from the Ministry of Public
Safety and Solicitor General
(MPSSG). The MPSSG responded
nine months later. Upon
review, the Adjudicator
found that MPSSG had not
fulfilled its responsibilities
under section 6(1) and section
7. The Adjudicator ordered
MPSSG, under section
58(3), to refund fees
that the applicant paid.
This order is a
companion to Orders
F05-21 and F05-23 which
were issued concurrently
with this order. All
three concern the same
applicant and related
records, although the
public bodies are
different.
|
|
The applicant requested
records related to a property
from the Ministry of Attorney
General (MAG). The MAG responded
nine months later. Upon
review, the Adjudicator
found the MAG had not fulfilled
its responsibilities under
section 6(1) and section
7. The Adjudicator ordered
the MAG, under section
58(3), to refund fees
that the applicant paid.
This order is a
companion to Orders
F05-21 and F05-22 which
were issued concurrently
with this order. All
three concern the same
applicant and related
records, although the
public bodies are
different.
|
|
The applicant, a patient in a hospital operated by the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission (Commission), requested his records from the Commission. The Commission refused to disclose the records of the patient, on the grounds they were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) under s. 3(1)(h) of the Act. Upon review, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (Commissioner) found the Act did apply to the records, and required the Commission to release to the applicant the documents in dispute.
|
|
The applicants requested records from the Security Program Division of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (the Ministry) related to a complaint they had made to the Ministry against a private investigation business. The Ministry responded by disclosing a number of records, and withholding the remainder under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22 of the Act. Upon review, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found that ss. 13(1) and 14 authorize the Ministry to refuse disclosure and, with one exception relating to personal information of the applicants, s. 22 requires the Ministry to refuse disclosure.
|
|
The applicant, the Cambie Boulevard Heritage Society (the Society), requested records from the Office of the Premier (the Office) relating to the development of a rapid transit line connecting Richmond, Vancouver International Airport and downtown Vancouver. Mediation between the two parties resulted in the disclosure of some of the information in dispute. The Office withheld the remaining records under ss. 12(1), 14, 16(1), 17(1)(e) and 22(1) of the Act. Upon review, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (the Commissioner) found the information to which the Office had applied ss. 12(1) and 22(1) satisfied the requirements of these sections, and required the Office to withhold the records. The Commissioner also found the withheld information to which the Office applied ss. 14, 16(1)(a) and (b) and 17(1)(e) satisfied the requirements of the sections, and authorized the Office to withhold the remaining records.
|
|
The applicant requested a copy of a workplace investigation report from the Coast Mountain Bus Company (Translink). Translink provided the majority of the report to the applicant, severing a small amount of information. The applicant requested full access to the document. Translink refused under s. 22(1) of the Act. Upon review, the adjudicator found that, although the information in dispute contained personal information of the applicant, its disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. The adjudicator, therefore, required Translink to refuse to disclose the severed information.
|
|
The applicant requested
various records relating
to the Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).
The City of Burnaby (City)
released much of the information
requested but withheld one
report under section 22.
Upon review, the Adjudicator
found that once personal
information was severed
from the report, the remaining
information did not fall
under section 22 and ordered
the City to disclose the
report.
|
|
The City of Richmond (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. The applicant, a journalist, requested access to the lawyer’s report. The City refused the applicant access to the report under s. 14 of the Act. Upon review, the Information and Privacy Commissioner found the report was protected by legal professional privilege and authorized the City, under s. 14 of the Act, to refuse its disclosure to the applicant.
|
|
The applicant requested records related to a police investigation into the theft of his vehicle’s licence plates. The Abbotsford Police Department (the Department or ADP) released the majority of the records, but withheld some information under s. 22 of the FOIPP Act. Upon review, the adjudicator found s. 22 applied, and required the Department to refuse the applicant access to the severed information.
|
|
|
The applicant, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA), requested copies of electoral disclosure documents from the City of Vancouver (the City) under s. 9(2)(a). The City responded that s. 65 of the Vancouver Charter (Charter), which restricts access to electoral reporting documents to specific purposes, is in conflict with s. 9(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) and that, pursuant to s. 8(1) which states to the extent that the Charter is in conflict with the Act, the Charter will prevail. While the Information and Privacy Commissioner (the Commissioner) disagreed with the City, he found s. 65 of the Charter and s. 4 of the Act are in conflict. As such, the applicant was denied access to, and therefore copies of, the records in question.
|
|
The applicant requested records relating to a child custody matter between her and her daughter from the Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry). The Ministry withheld documents created by the family advocate under ss. 14 and 22. The applicant questioned whether the Ministry had performed an adequate search under s. 6. The adjudicator found there had been an adequate search under s. 6, and that the Ministry was not authorized to withhold the documents under s. 14, but was required to do so under s. 22.
|
|
The applicant requested records from the City of Surrey (the City) relating to complaints to bylaw officers from third parties. The City released the records in severed form. The third parties contended that the records must not be disclosed because there is an unreasonable invasion of their privacy related to the risk of harm, and the fact that they supplied the personal information in confidence. The adjudicator rejected the third parties’ arguments and ordered the records be disclosed, with the personal opinions of the third parties severed under s. 22.
|
|
The applicant requested records related to a competition for a consulting contract with the Ministry of Health Services (the Ministry), including details about the successful proponents’ applications and contracts. The Ministry released some records, but severed most information relating to the successful proponents under ss. 21(1) and 22. The Information and Privacy Commissioner found ss. 21(1) and 22 did not apply to most of the records, and ordered them released, with the exception of some personal information of third parties which was ordered severed under s. 22. |
|
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Land, Air and Water (the Ministry) regarding the Ministry’s response to a complaint made about the protection of a stream. The Ministry released the records, but severed the personal information of the third party who made the complaint under ss. 15 and 22. The adjudicator found the Ministry was required by s. 22(3)(b) to sever the information in question, as the information was collected as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law.
|
|
The applicant, the Village of Hazelton, requested a report prepared by a third party for a corporation (552) owned by the Province of British Columbia (the Province) from the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise (the Ministry). The Information and Privacy Commissioner (the Commissioner) found 552, while controlled by the Province, was not a public body under the meaning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Ministry withheld most of the report under ss. 13(1) and 21(1). The Commissioner ordered that the Ministry was required to withhold the report under s. 21(1), because disclosure would harm the business interests of 552 as a third party.
|
|
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Health Services (the Ministry) related to a Core Services Review of the B.C. Ambulance Service. The applicant argued the Ministry had failed its s. 4(2) duty to sever the records, and its s. 6(1) duty to respond fully to the applicant’s request. The applicant also argued the records were required to be released under s. 25, because the release would be in the public interest. The Ministry withheld records under ss. 12(1), 13 and 17(1). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply to the records, and that the Ministry was required to refuse to disclose the records under s. 12(1) because the records would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet. The adjudicator did not make an order on ss. 13 and 17(1), as the s. 12(1) order applied to the same information.
|
|
The applicant requested a review of the fee estimate, provided by the District of West Vancouver in response to an access request pertaining to his neighbour’s lot, including correspondence with and between District officials. The adjudicator found the estimates provided by the District were appropriate.
|
|
The applicant requested records about an Environmental Assessment from the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (the Ministry). The applicant requested a fee waiver under s. 75(5) because the release of the records was in the public interest. The Ministry denied the fee waiver. The adjudicator upheld the Ministry’s decision to refuse a fee waiver.
|
|
The applicant requested a complete judgement of inquiry regarding an individual’s death from the Office of the Chief Coroner (Coroner). The Coroner severed third party information under s. 22(1). The applicant argued the record should be disclosed under s. 25. The adjudicator found the Coroner was not required by s. 25 to disclose the report, and was required by s. 22(1) to sever third party information.
|
|
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry) pertaining to a motor vehicle accident which killed the applicant’s mother. The Ministry withheld responsive records under s. 15(1)(g) because they related to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The adjudicator found the Ministry was authorized to withhold the records under s. 15(1)(g) because they were used to exercise prosecutorial discretion.
|
|
The applicant, on behalf of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), requested records related to Public-Private Partnerships from the Ministry of Finance (the Ministry). The applicant requested a fee waiver under s. 75(5)(b), because it argued the release of the records was in the public interest. The Ministry denied the fee waiver. The adjudicator upheld the Ministry’s decision to deny CUPE’s request for a fee waiver, because the records did not relate to a matter of public interest.
|
|
The applicant requested records related to his former employment with the University of British Columbia (UBC). UBC withheld parts of the responsive records under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22. The applicant challenged UBC’s decision to withhold the severed sections. In addition, the applicant claimed UBC had failed its s. 6 duty to perform an adequate search and to respond openly, accurately and completely. The adjudicator found that, with some exceptions, UBC was required to sever the records under s. 22, and authorized to sever the records under ss. 13(1) and 14, and that notwithstanding a minor mistake, UBC had discharged its duties under s. 6.
|
|
The applicant requested records from the Law Society of British Columbia (the Society) regarding disciplinary information, complaints and allegations of negligence of two lawyers. The Society refused to confirm or deny the existence of some of the records under s. 8(2)(b), and severed others citing ss. 13(1), 14 and 22 of the FOIPP Act (the Act). The Society also refused to disclose some of the records to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (the Commissioner) under the authority of s. 88(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (LP Act). The Commissioner found the Society was authorized to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of some of the records under s. 8(2)(b), and was authorized by s. 14 or required by s. 22 to refuse disclosure of the rest of the disputed records. The Commissioner decided he did not need to consider the application of s. 13(1), as the Society had applied it to the same records as s. 14. The Commissioner also found s. 88(2)(b) of the LP Act did not require the Society to withhold records from the Commissioner, under solicitor client privilege for the purposes of an inquiry.
|
|
The applicant requested the phone logs of the Premier’s private phone line from the Ministry of Management Services (Ministry). The Ministry refused to disclose records which relate to personal calls made by the Premier under ss. 17 and 22, and refused to sever the records under s. 4(2). The applicant argued the release of the records was required by s. 25. The Information and Privacy Commissioner (the Commissioner) found s. 17 did not authorize the Ministry to refuse disclosure, but that the Ministry was required under s. 22 to refuse disclosure. The Commissioner found s. 25 did not require the Ministry to disclose the records. The Commissioner also agreed with the Ministry’s position that the nature of phone log records absolved it of its duty under s. 4(2) to sever the records.
|
|
The applicant requested a list of all firearm matters, which have gone to reference hearing and “other firearm related hearings that are a matter of public record”, from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (the Ministry). The Ministry refused disclosure of such a list under s. 14, as it was prepared by legal counsel. The applicant argued disclosure of the records was required by s. 25, and that the Ministry had a duty to create a record under s. 6(2). The adjudicator found the Ministry had authority to refuse to disclose under s. 14, and rejected the applicant’s argument that the record must be disclosed pursuant to s. 25. The adjudicator also found the Ministry was not required by s. 6(2) to create a record in the circumstances.
|
|
The applicant requested the notes from a harassment investigation against him, completed by a contractor of the Board of Trustees of School District No. 63 (the District). The District refused to answer his request because they had hired a contractor to investigate the complaint and, therefore, argued they did not have custody or control of the records, and so could not be compelled to disclose them. The adjudicator found the documents were in the custody or control of the District, and ordered the District to provide a full response to the applicant’s request.
|
|
The applicant requested an investigation report, and related notes, from the Vancouver Police Department (Department) related to an alleged assault by Department officers at St. Paul’s Hospital (St. Paul’s). The Department withheld some records, mostly the names of hospital staff, family and other patients, arguing they were required to do so by s. 22(1), or authorized to do so by s. 19(1)(a). The adjudicator ordered the release of the names of individuals working as public servants before the beginning of an investigation, but found the remaining information was required to be withheld by s. 22(1), or authorized to be withheld under s. 19(1)(a).
|
|
The applicant requested records, related to a credit report about the applicant, obtained by the West Vancouver Police Department (the Department) from Equifax Canada (Equifax). The Department severed some of the records, arguing it was required to do so by s. 22(1). The applicant challenged the severing of an anonymous letter which began an investigation, and the name of an Equifax employee on a fax. The adjudicator ordered the Department to release the applicant’s own personal information in the anonymous letter, and the name of an Equifax employee on the fax, but required the Department to withhold third party personal information in the anonymous letter under s. 22(1).
|
|
The applicant requested records related to himself and his two children from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). The Ministry released most of the records but severed some pursuant to s. 77 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCS Act) and s. 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPP Act). The applicant appealed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information under both of these sections. The applicant also questioned whether the Ministry had exercised due diligence in its search for records under s. 6. The adjudicator found the Ministry had appropriately severed the records, with the exception of the name of an RCMP officer, some of the applicant’s own personal information and a small amount of third party personal information. The adjudicator also found the Ministry had exercised due diligence under s. 6.
|
|
The applicant requested records related to an investigation contracted out by the Provincial Health Services Authority (the Authority). The Authority released some records, but the applicant questioned the adequacy of the Authority’s search. The adjudicator found the Authority had performed an adequate search under s. 6.
|
|
The applicant requested detailed results of “Clinical Microbiology Testing” for a laboratory from the Provincial Health Services Authority (the Authority). The Authority responded that they were not under an obligation to create a record under s. 6(2). The adjudicator found the Authority did not have a duty to create a record under s. 6(2) because the original records were not in machine readable format.
|
|
The applicant requested records from the Provincial Health Services Authority and the Children’s and Women’s Health Centre (referred to collectively as PHSA) related to his employment with and termination from the PHSA. The PHSA released some records but withheld substantial portions of others under ss. 12(3), 13(1), 14 and 22. The applicant also questioned whether the PHSA had performed an adequate search pursuant to s. 6 and argued the PHSA had not met its time limit for response pursuant to s. 7. The adjudicator found the PHSA was authorized by s. 14 to withhold some of the records. Other responsive records were ordered to be released, because the PHSA was not authorized to withhold these records under ss. 12(3) or 13(1), and was not required to withhold them by s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the PHSA to expand its search in order to fulfill its duty under s. 6 and found it had violated the time limit set out in s. 7. The adjudicator also noted the PHSA had not fulfilled its duty under s. 4(2) to make reasonable efforts to sever records. |
|
The applicant requested all records related to the relationship between the Provincial Health Services Authority and the Children’s and Women’s Medical Centre (referred to collectively as PHSA) and a consulting business. The adjudicator found the PHSA had fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty to perform an adequate search.
|
|
The applicant requested records related to dealings between the City of Vancouver (the City) and a number of external consultants. The applicant argued the City had failed to meet its s. 6 duty to complete an adequate search by not requesting records from the consultants. The City argued the records were not in the control of the City. The Information and Privacy Commissioner (the Commissioner) found the City did not control the records and had, therefore, fulfilled its s. 6 duty. The Commissioner also found the City was not required to request records from external consultants.
|
|
The applicant requested a number of different financial records from the City of Rossland (the City). The City assessed a fee of $300, after which the applicant requested a fee waiver under s. 75(5). The adjudicator upheld the City’s refusal to grant a fee waiver under s. 75(5).
|
|
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General regarding a casino application, and part of the request was transferred to the Ministry of Attorney General (the Ministry). The Ministry was found to have failed to fulfill its s. 6(1) duty to respond without delay, because it was in breach of the time limits imposed by s. 7. This order was released concurrently with orders 04-31 and 04-32.
|
|
The applicant requested records from Land and Water BC (LWBC) related to a proposed casino development. LWBC requested and received a time extension, but did not respond within the new time limit. The Information and Privacy Commissioner found LWBC had not complied with its s. 6 duty to respond fully and without delay. This order was released concurrently with orders 04-30 and 04-32.
|
|
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (the Ministry) related to a proposed casino development. The Ministry requested and received a time extension, but did not respond within the new time limit. The Information and Privacy Commissioner found the Ministry had not fulfilled its s. 6 duty to respond fully and without delay to the applicant’s request. This order was released concurrently with orders 04-30 and 04-31.
|
|
The applicant requested records, related to an investigation he initiated against several employees of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (the Ministry), while he was also an employee with the Ministry. The Ministry withheld some of the responsive records under s. 22. The adjudicator found the Ministry was not required by s. 22 to refuse disclosure to some of the records, and ordered those records disclosed. The adjudicator also found the Ministry was required to provide a summary of some of the remaining records under s. 22(5).
|
|
The applicant requested a “term sheet” from the British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority (the Authority). The Authority withheld parts of the record under s. 12(1). The applicant argued the severed information withheld under s. 12(1) should be released under s. 12(2)(c)(iii). The adjudicator found s. 12(2)(c)(iii) did not apply to the severed portion of the records, and ordered the Authority not to disclose the information in question.
|
|
The applicant requested her adoption file from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry). The Ministry withheld third party information related to the identity of the applicant’s birth father under s. 22. The adjudicator found the Ministry was required by s. 22 to refuse to disclose the identity of the applicant’s birth father.
|
|
The applicant requested the identity of a lawyer who provided a report for the Provincial Health Services Authority (the Authority or PHSA). The Authority determined no such record existed, and the applicant questioned the adequacy of the Authority’s search under s. 6(1). The adjudicator found the Authority had fulfilled its s. 6(1) duty to complete an adequate search.
|
|
The applicant requested records related to himself from the communications department of the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA). PHSA provided records, but severed some information under ss. 13(1), 14 and 22. PHSA also severed some information on the grounds the information was not responsive to the request. The applicant argued PHSA applied the exceptions to disclosure improperly, and that it failed to fulfill its s. 6(1) duty by refusing to disclose records it felt were outside the scope of his request. The adjudicator found PHSA had fulfilled its s. 6 duty, and that the records, severed on the grounds of being outside the scope of the request, were not responsive records. The adjudicator found PHSA was required to sever all the information withheld under s. 22, and authorized to sever all the information withheld under s. 14. The adjudicator also found PHSA was not authorized to withhold some of the information severed under s. 13(1), because it was factual material within the meaning of s. 13(2)(b). For the remainder of the records severed by PHSA under s. 13(1), the adjudicator ordered PHSA to reconsider its decision to withhold that information.
|
|
The applicant requested records from the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) related to interactions between PHSA, the Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of B.C. and the BC Health Care Risk Management Society, insofar as those interactions related to himself. PHSA responded that no such records existed. The applicant alleged PHSA’s search was inadequate under s. 6(1), because the personal records of physicians were in the custody and control of PHSA under the meaning of ss. 3(1) and 4(1). The adjudicator found PHSA had fulfilled its s. 6(1) to assist the applicant, by performing an adequate search. The adjudicator did not make a ruling on issues related to ss. 3(1) and 4(1), because PHSA and the applicant agreed to abandon the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records from the Ministry
of Children and Family Development
(Ministry) pertaining to
themselves, their daughter
and their sons, that primarily
related to the Ministry’s
action in placing their
daughter in foster care.
Under review was whether
the Ministry made a reasonable
effort to locate and retrieve
records containing the applicants’
personal information that
was under the Ministry’s
control but in the custody
of two contractors. The
adjudicator appointed by
the Commissioner under section
49(1) held that the Director
exercised such diligence
that it is not reasonable
to believe that records
were omitted from the response.
|
|
|
A journalist made a request
to the University of British
Columbia (UBC) for marketing
contracts and associated
records respecting the exclusive
supply by businesses of
services and goods to UBC
students, faculty and staff.
This is one of three orders
issued because of the different
third parties and records
involved. Under review was
whether UBC could withhold
draft exclusive marketing
agreements with the two
banks involved and whether
UBC conducted an adequate
search for one requested
record. Relevant sections
under review were 6(1),
14, 17(1), 21, and 25(1).
The Commissioner ordered
UBC to give the applicant
access to the draft agreement
with the exception of the
handwritten notes on two
pages, which may be withheld
under section 14.
|
|
|
A journalist made a request
to the University of British
Columbia (UBC) for marketing
contracts and associated
records respecting the exclusive
supply by businesses of
services and goods to UBC
students, faculty and staff.
This is one of three orders
issued because of the different
third parties and records
involved. One of the records
covered by the applicant’s
request was a 1999 “Strategic
Alliance Agreement between
UBC and Telus. A third party,
Telus, requested a review
of UBC’s decision to release
the Telus agreement to the
applicant. The issues under
review in this inquiry are
whether section 25(1)(b)
required UBC to disclose
the Telus agreement, and
whether section 21(1) required
UBC to refuse to disclose
the Telus agreement. The
Commissioner found that
section 25(1)(b) did not
require UBC to disclose
the Telus agreement and
that section 21(1) did not
require UBC to refuse to
disclose the information
in the agreement.
|
|
|
A journalist made a request
to the University of British
Columbia (UBC) for marketing
contracts and associated
records respecting the exclusive
supply by businesses of
services and goods to UBC
students, faculty and staff.
This is one of three orders
issued because of the different
third parties and records
involved. Some of the records
covered by the applicant’s
request were records comprising
and relating to agreements
between UBC and Spectrum
respecting marketing services
to be provided by Spectrum.
Spectrum, a third party,
agreed to the release of
most of the information
related to its agreements
with UBC but requested a
review of UBC’s decision
to release certain other
information to the applicant.
The issues under review
in this inquiry were whether
section 25(1)(b) required
UBC to disclose this information,
and whether section 21(1)
required UBC to refuse to
disclose this information.
The Commissioner found that
section 25(1)(b) did not
require UBC to disclose
the Spectrum related records
and that section 21(1) did
not require UBC to withhold
this information.
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the City of Vancouver
(City) for access to the
agendas and minutes for
all meetings of the City’s
Property Endowment Fund
Board (Board) for a specified
time period. Under review
was whether section 17(1)
authorized the City to refuse
to disclose and whether
section 21 required the
City to refuse to disclose
the disputed records. The
Commissioner found that
section 21(1) applied to
the records in dispute and
that the City was required
to refuse disclosure of
the records. Since section
21(1)(c)(iii) required the
City to refuse disclosure,
it was not necessary for
the Commissioner to consider
section 17(1).
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the Vancouver Police
Department (VPD) for records
relating to an internal
VPD investigation of a harassment
complaint against the applicant.
Under review was whether
the Police Act precludes
the Commissioner from proceeding
with the inquiry and, if
not, whether section 22(1)
required the VPD to refuse
access to all or parts of
the disputed records. The
Commissioner held that by
virtue of section 66.1 of
the Police Act, the Freedom
of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act (Act) did
not apply to the disputed
records. However, the Police
Act did not apply to a small
number of records and section
22(1) of the Act required
the VPD to refuse to disclose
those pages.
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the British Columbia
Hydro and Power Authority
(BC Hydro) for records relating
to her deceased husband’s
medical condition and the
extent that his disability
is relevant to the option
he chose regarding his pension
payout. This inquiry was
conducted by an adjudicator
appointed by the Commissioner
under section 49(1). Under
review was whether the applicant
was acting on her late husband’s
behalf within the meaning
of section 3(c) and whether
BC Hydro was required by
section 22 to refuse access
to the requested records.
The adjudicator appointed
by the Commissioner under
section 49(1) held that
the applicant was entitled
to access the requested
records on behalf of her
late husband and Hydro was
not required under section
22 to refuse access to the
requested records.
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the University of Victoria
(UVic) for records relating
to his previous attendance
at UVic as a student. Under
review was whether UVic
was authorized by section
13(1), 14, 15(1)(f), 19(1)
or required by section 22(1)
to refuse to disclose information,
and whether UVic fulfilled
its duty under section 6(1)
to undertake an adequate
search for records responsive
to the applicant’s request.
The Commissioner found that
UVic met its duty under
section 6(1), was authorized
under section 13(1), 14,
15(1)(f) and 19(1)(a) and
required under section 22(1)
to refuse to disclose the
information withheld under
these sections.
|
|
|
The Chair of the False Creek
Landlease Action Committee
(applicant) made a request
to the City of Vancouver
(City) for a copy of the
minutes of an in camera
council meeting at which
a motion directing City
staff to negotiate with
False Creek South land leaseholders
was defeated. Under review
was whether section 25(1)
required the City to release
the records and whether
the City was authorized
under section 12(3)(b) to
withhold portions of the
records. The adjudicator
appointed by the Commissioner
under section 49(1) held
that the City was not required
to disclose the information
under section 25, and the
City was authorized by section
12(3)(b) to refuse to disclose
information.
|
|
|
The applicant, with the
father’s authorization,
made a request to the Vancouver
Coastal Health Authority
(VCHA) for copies of his
father’s case file reports.
Under review was whether
the VCHA was authorized
under section 19(1)(a) to
refuse access to information.
The adjudicator appointed
by the Commissioner under
section 49(1) held that
the VCHA was authorized
by section 19(1)(a) to refuse
to disclose all of the severed
information.
|
|
|
The Living Oceans Society
(applicant) made a request
to the Ministry of Sustainable
Resource Management (Ministry)
for access to digital marine
spatial data for British
Columbia in a specified
electronic format. Under
review was whether the Ministry
was authorized to withhold
the information under section
17. The Commissioner found
that section 17(1) authorized
the Ministry to refuse to
disclose the disputed information.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
access to any information
held by the Public Guardian
and Trustee of British Columbia
(PGT) concerning her possible
abuse or mismanagement of
her mother’s financial affairs.
Under review was whether
the PGT was required by
section 22 to refuse to
disclose the requested information
to the applicant. The adjudicator
appointed by the Commissioner
under section 49(1) held
that the PGT was required
by section 22 to withhold
the information in dispute
and was required to performs
its duty under section 22(5)
to provide the applicant
with a summary of the applicant’s
personal information in
the disputed records.
|
|
|
The applicant, a former
employee of the British
Columbia Corrections Service,
made a request to the Ministry
of Public Safety and Solicitor
General (Ministry) for records
related to an investigation
of workplace incidents that
led to his discipline. Under
review was whether the Ministry
was required under section
22 to withhold information
from the interview transcripts
and the investigation report,
whether the Ministry was
required to sever copies
of the interview tapes under
section 4(2), and whether
the Ministry was authorized
under section 9(2) to refuse
to disclose copies of the
interview tapes. The Commissioner
found that the Ministry
was required to withhold
the severed information
under section 22, and that
the Ministry had not performed
its duties under sections
4(2) and 9(2) and must provide
the applicant with copies
of the audiotapes, severed
as appropriate.
|
|
|
The British Columbia Archives
of the Ministry Management
Services (Ministry) responded
to an applicant’s request
for a copy of an “incomplete
report” by the Smith Commission
of Inquiry relating to the
Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding
Society. Under review was
whether the Ministry was
correct in applying section
3(1)(b) to decide that the
Act did not apply to the
final draft of the Smith
Commission report, and whether
section 25(1)(b) - disclosure
in the public interest -
applied. The adjudicator
appointed by the Commissioner
under section 49(1) held
that Commissioner Smith
was not acting in a judicial
or quasi-judicial capacity
and, therefore, section
3(1)(b) did not apply and
BC Archives must consider
the applicant’s request
for access. She also found
that section 25(1)(b) did
not apply.
|
|
|
|
|
The applicant made three
requests for records relating
to a number of members and
former members of the Law
Society of British Columbia
(Law Society). All or part
of 290 documents are under
review for time extension,
refusal of fee waiver, and
sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c),
8(2)(b), 19(1)(a), 22(1),
and 25.
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the Central Saanich Police
Service for the name of
an individual who had approached
police about distributing
posters about the applicant
in the community. Sections
19 and 22 are under review.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records relating to the
College of Pharmacists of
British Columbia’s accidental
disclosure, in 1997, of
prescription-related information
of two hospital patients.
Sections 6, 14 and 22 are
under review.
|
|
|
The British Columbia Housing
Management Commission refused
under section 21 to disclose
a list of subcontractors
submitted by a third-party
bidder to an unsuccessful
corporate bidder for a construction
project.
|
|
|
The applicants requested
correction of their son’s
medical records and destruction
of a medical report about
him. St. Paul’s Hospital
(Hospital) agreed to correct
two factual errors and attached
correction correspondence
to the son’s medical records,
but would not destroy the
medical report. Under review
was section 29. The Commissioner
held that the Hospital acted
properly in annotating the
records by attaching the
applicants’ correction correspondence
to the appropriate record,
in linking the corrected
and original records, and
in refusing to destroy the
medical report.
|
|
|
The applicant journalist
requested particulars of
investment securities held,
bought and sold by the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia
(ICBC), including transaction-specific
information. Under review
were sections 17(1) and
25(1)(b). The Commissioner
held that ICBC is not required
by section 25(1)(b) to disclose
the disputed information
in the public interest.
Section 17(1) does not authorize
ICBC to indefinitely withhold
all information relating
to securities held, bought
or sold for its investment
portfolio. ICBC was authorized
under section 17(1)(d) to
refuse further disclosure,
except for biannual “snapshot”
investment portfolio summaries
(without transaction details)
for June 30 and December
31, 1999 and June 30, 2000.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
copies of individual invoices
from a law firm that was
acting for the Board of
School Trustees of School
District No. 61 (School
District) in a particular
litigation matter. The requested
records were refused under
section 14 on the grounds
that they are subject to
solicitor client privilege.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
copies of two witness statements
and an accident diagram
and provided the consent
of both witnesses to the
Insurance Corporation of
British Columbia (ICBC).
Section 14 (litigation privilege)
is under review.
|
|
|
The applicants made an access
request to the City of White
Rock that contained a number
of elements and asked for
answers to questions. Section
6(1) is under review.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
all Ministry of Human Resources
records relating to the
applicant from February
1993. Sections 15(1)(d),
19(1)(a) and 22(1) are under
review.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
access to staff reports
to City of Vancouver Council,
and to minutes of Council
meetings, regarding a City
contract with a third party
business. Sections 13, 14
and 25 are under review.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
all records relating to
him in the custody or control
of the Workers’ Compensation
Review Board. Sections 6(1),
3(1)(b), 14, and 22 are
under review.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
all records relating to
him in the custody or control
of the Ministry of Attorney
General and Ministry of
Skills Development and Labour
(Ministries). Under review
were sections 6(1) and section
14. (See also Order 00-12).
The Commissioner held that
the Ministries’ search for
records was adequate and
met the section 6(1) duty.
The Ministries correctly
decided that certain other
records and information
are expected from disclosure
by section 14.
|
|
|
The applicant made several
requests to the District
of Squamish (District) regarding
the issuance of building
approvals in the applicant's
neighbourhood. Under review
was whether the district
should have waived its fee
for locating, retrieving,
preparing, copying and handling
records. The Commissioner
delegated authority for
conducting this review to
his Executive Director under
section 49(1). The Commissioner
confirmed the findings of
his delegate, who agreed
with the fee estimate issued
by the District and with
the District's decision
to refuse the applicant
a refund of the fee.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
that the Workers’ Compensation
Board (WCB) correct two
decision letters issued
by WCB adjudicators.
The only issue in this inquiry
is whether the WCB acted
appropriately under section
29 in declining to make
the requested corrections
and, instead, annotating
the affected records with
the corrections. The Commissioner
agreed with the public body’s
decision.
|
|
|
The applicant, who had complained
over 10 years ago to the
College of Physicians and
Surgeons of British Columbia
(College) about one of its
member physicians, requested
records that included those
relating to her complaint
against that member. At
issue was the College’s
application of section 19
– the Commissioner supported
the public body’s decision.
|
|
|
Applicant requested any
and all notes by the Attorney
General Andrew Petter’s
office in relation to a
complaint that the applicant
or his incorporate business
had made. Issues under review
are the ministry’s application
of section 14 and whether
they conducted an adequate
search.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records in the custody of
the City of Coquitlam and
any records in the custody
of the Coquitlam Detachment
of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police relating to the applicant
for a specified timeframe.
Sections 6(1), 12, 13, 14,
16, and 22 are under review.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
names and addresses of each
and every person who made
complaints to the Law Society
of British Columbia about
a lawyer’s conduct within
the calendar year 2000.
Sections 14, 22 and 25(1)(b)
are under review.
|
|
|
The applicant made two requests
to the Ministry of Public
Safety and Solicitor General
for records related to workplace
issues. Section 22 is under
review.
|
|
|
The Esquimalt Police Union
sought access to copies
of Esquimalt Police Board
minutes of all meetings
held by the Board both sitting
as the Police Board as well
as those meetings held by
the Police Board in conjunction
with the Esquimalt Municipal
Council (or representative
thereof) for a specified
time period where matters
concerning the issue of
splitting the Esquimalt
Police/Fire Department were
discussed. Sections 12(3)(b)
and 25(1) are under review.
|
|
|
The applicant landlords
asked the Residential Tenancy
Office (Ministry) for the
current address of a former
tenant to collect money
owed under an arbitrator’s
award under the Residential
Tenancy Act (RTA). Under
review was whether the Ministry
is required by s. 22 to
refuse to give the applicants
access to the third party’s
mailing address on the ground
that the disclosure would
unreasonably invade the
personal privacy of the
third party. The Commissioner
held that the Ministry is
not required by s. 22(1)
to refuse to disclose the
third party’s address to
the applicants. In reaching
this conclusion the Commissioner
“kept in mind the fact that
s. 22 guards against only
“unreasonable” invasions
of personal privacy, not
all invasions of personal
privacy.”
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the Ministry of Attorney
General for records that
he sent to the Attorney
General in the 1990s.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
correspondence held by the
Ministry of Children and
Family Development about
the applicant, her employment
and her case under the provincial
government’s Short Term
Illness and Injury Program.
Sections 13(1), 22, and
6(1) are under review.
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the British Columbia
Housing Management Commission
(BCHMC) for records setting
out the calculations used
to derive his subsidized
rent. Ruling on the only
issue under review, the
adjudicator found that BCHMC
complied with its section
6(1) duty to respond to
the applicant openly, accurately
and completely.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records related to alcohol
and drug issues from British
Columbia Archives. Sections
6(1), 7 and 10 are under
review.
|
|
|
The Workers’ Compensation
Board refused an applicant’s
request to correct a decision
letter and a ‘reiteration
letter’ issued by an adjudicator
respecting the applicant’s
claim. Section 29 is under
review.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
all Workers’ Compensation
Board records pertaining
to her that were outside
of her claim file. Section
6(1) is under review.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records that the Forensic
Psychiatric Services Commission
(Commission) held about
her late son. Under review
was whether the applicant
was acting on her son’s
behalf or as a third party,
and whether the Commission
was required by section
22 of the Act to refuse
the applicant access to
the requested records. The
Commissioner found that
the Commission was correct
in determining that the
applicant was not acting
on behalf of the deceased
for the purposes of section
3(c) of the Regulation.
The Commissioner upheld
the Commission’s decision
to withhold records under
section 22(1).
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records from the Justice
Institute of British Columbia
(Justice Institute) showing
the pass/failure and other
assessment rates of assessors
from 1997 to 2001 (to date)
in a Conflict Resolution
Certificate Program. Under
review was whether section
22(1) requires the Justice
Institute to refuse to disclose
personal information of
various assessors. The Commissioner
ordered the Justice Institute
to give the applicant access
to the personal information
that it withheld under section
22.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
access from the Ministry
of Water, Land and Air Protection
(Ministry) to real-time
display of the webcam feeds
from two beehive burners
via the Internet. The applicant
also requested a public
interest fee waiver. Under
review was whether the live
webcam video feed is a “record”
as defined in Schedule 1
to the Act. If it is not,
the Act does not apply and
the applicant has no right
of access under the Act.
The live webcam feeds are
not “records” within the
meaning of the Act.
|
|
|
The applicant request all
records related to the review
of two appraisals, which
was later narrowed to a
complete copy of the
in camera meeting minutes
of May 8, 2001 and for a
memorandum dated June 25,
2001 from the Deputy City
Manager and Assistant City
Solicitor that were referred
to in the in camera council
minutes of June 26, 2001.
Under review was whether
the City is authorized under
section 12(3)(b) to withhold
portions of records that
would reveal the substance
of deliberations of an
in camera council
meeting, and whether the
City is authorized under
section 14 to withhold a
confidential communication
between solicitor and client
for the purpose of providing
legal advice. The adjudicator
appointed by the Commissioner
under section 49(1) held
that the City is authorized
to withhold information
under section 12(3)(b) and
section 14.
|
|
|
The applicant’s lawyer requested
the applicants claim file
from the Insurance Corporation
of British Columbia (ICBC).
Under review was whether
ICBC was authorized to refuse
to disclose the Collision
Analyst Investigation Report
under section 20(1)(a),
which is information that
is available for purchase
by the public. Although
this document was disclosed
by another source, the applicant
declined to abandon his
request for review. ICBC
was authorized by section
20(1)(a) of the Act to refuse
to disclose the disputed
record.
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the Vancouver Hospital
& Health Sciences Centre,
now known as the Vancouver
Coastal Health Authority
(VCHA), for access to medical
information relating to
an examination of the applicant
by a physician at his UBC
Hospital office. Under review
is whether the VCHA has
custody or control over
the records requested by
the applicant for the purposes
of sections 3(1) and 4(1)
of the Act. The adjudicator,
appointed by the Commissioner
under section 49(1), held
that the Act does not apply
to the requested records
because they are not in
the custody or under the
control of the VCHA for
the purposes of sections
3(1) and 4(1).
|
|
|
The Lheidli T’enneh First
Nation (Lheidli T’enneh)
made a request to the then
Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs
(Ministry) for appraisal
reports and supporting documentation
for specific land parcels
included in an offer made
by British Columbia and
Canada during treaty negotiations.
Under review was whether
the Ministry is required
by section 25(1)(b) to disclose
information; is required
by section 12(1) to refuse
to disclose information;
is authorized by section
16(1)(a)(i) or 16(1)(c)
to refuse to disclose information;
and whether the Ministry
is authorized by section
17(1)(e) to refuse to disclose
information. The Commissioner
found that the Ministry
is not required by section
25(1)(b) to disclose the
disputed information; the
Ministry is required by
section 12(1) and is authorized
by section 17(1)(e) to refuse
to disclose the disputed
information; and the Ministry
is not authorized to refuse
disclosure under section
16(1).
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, now the
Ministry of Water, Land
and Air Protection (Ministry),
for copies of communications
related to proposals or
designations about specific
wildlife management areas,
between an environmental
group, the Ministry, the
Land Use Coordination Office,
the Minister and the Premier
or the Premier’s Office.
Under review was whether
the applicant is entitled
to a fee waiver under section
75(5) of the Act because
the applicant claims that
the requested records relate
to a matter of public interest.
The adjudicator, appointed
by the Commissioner under
section 49(1), held that
a full fee waiver under
section 75(5)(b) was appropriate
in this case.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
all information pertaining
to him held by a youth correctional
facility now operated by
the Ministry of Children
and Family Development.
Section 6(1) is under review.
|
|
|
The applicant made two separate
requests to the Workers’
Compensation Board (WCB)
for a copy of records pertaining
to him. Under review was
whether or not the WCB conducted
an adequate search for records
and thus discharged its
duty to assist the applicant
under section 6(1) of the
Act. The adjudicator, appointed
by the Commissioner under
section 49(1), held that
WCB conducted an adequate
search for records and fulfilled
its duty under section 6(1).
|
|
|
The Hospital Employees’
Union (HEU) requested access
to all records in the custody
or control of the Ministry
of Health Services (Ministry)
concerning the subject matters
encompassed by Bill 29 of
the previous legislative
session. Under review was
whether the Ministry complied
with its obligation under
section 6(1) to respond
to the applicant without
delay and openly, accurately
and completely and, if not,
what remedy should be given.
The Commissioner ordered
the Ministry to respond
completely to the HEU’s
access request before November
30, 2002 [17 calendar days],
and to deliver to him a
copy of its response letter
concurrently with its delivery
to the HEU.
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the Ministry of Attorney
General (Ministry) for records
pertaining to two investigations
relating to the conduct
of court employees during
two hearings. Under review
was whether the Ministry
fulfilled its duty under
section 6(1) to make every
reasonable effort to assist
the applicant in its search
for records. The adjudicator,
appointed by the Commissioner
under section 49(1), held
that the Ministry has fulfilled
its duty to assist under
section 6(1).
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the Architectural Institute
of British Columbia (Institute)
for access to records relating
to his employment with the
Institute and to records
related to two other employees.
Under review is whether
the Institute was authorized
by sections 14 and 17 and
required by section 22 to
refuse access to some of
the records requested by
the applicant. The adjudicator,
appointed by the Commissioner
under section 49(1), held
that the Institute is required
to withhold some but not
all of the information to
which it applied section
22, confirmed the Institute’s
application of section 14,
but found that section 17
did not apply.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
the same three-page record
from Simon Fraser University
(SFU) that her mother had
previously requested and
that was subject to an inquiry
resulting in Commissioner’s
Order 01-16. Under review
was whether SFU performed
its section 6 duty to assist
the applicant; whether it
is authorized to withhold
information under section
13; and whether it is required
to refuse to disclose information
under section 22. The Commissioner
held that the applicant’s
request was an abuse of
process whereby she attempted
to circumvent his findings
in Order 01-16; he further
confirmed that SFU was
authorized by section 13
and required by section
22 to refuse to disclose
information to the
applicant. In light of
those findings, a
section 6 determination
was not necessary
|
|
|
The applicant requested
access to records of the
British Columbia Assessment
Authority (BCAA) related
to GST inclusion in BCAA
assessments of real property
for property tax purposes.
Under review was whether
BCAA complied with section
2 and fulfilled its duty
under section 6(1) to assist
the applicant and responded
without delay, openly, accurately,
and completely; and whether
BCAA is authorized to refuse
access to information under
section 14. The Commissioner
found that BCAA failed to
respond in time (section
6 duty to respond without
delay), failed to extend
the response time (section
7 duty to respond within
30 days) and was authorized
to withhold records subject
to solicitor-client privilege
(section 14 legal advice).
The Commissioner also required
BCAA to conduct another
search for records within
40 days of the Order. The
Commissioner also considered
the applicant’s late request
to consider a public interest
disclosure under section
25, due to it mandatory
nature, but found it did
not apply.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records from the Ministry
of Children and Family Development
relating to her, and her
child who is not in her
custody. The issues under
review under the provisions
of the Child, Family and
Community Services Act (CFCS)
were narrowed to whether
the public body is obligated
to produce records already
provided to the applicant’s
legal counsel and whether
the public body is entitled
to withhold information
from the notes of a social
worker. The adjudicator,
appointed by the Commissioner
under section 49(1), found
that disclosure of records
to the applicant under the
access to records provisions
of the CFCS Act has not
occurred, and ordered the
public body to provide the
applicant with a complete
copy of the requested records,
subject to appropriate severing.
The Adjudicator also confirmed
the decision of the public
body to withhold the personal
information from the notes
of the social worker.
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the Cariboo Community
Health Services Society
(CCHSS) for records relating
to the mental health services
she received from that organization.
Under review was whether
the CCHSS correctly applied
section 22 and whether the
CCSHSS met its section 6(1)
duty to respond openly,
accurately and completely.
The adjudicator, appointed
by the Commissioner under
section 49(1), found that
the CCHSS correctly applied
section 22, and that CCHSS
conducted a thorough and
comprehensive search for
records and met its section
6(1) duty.
|
|
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records of statistics on
the amount of abortions
performed at the Children's
and Women's Health Centre
of British Columbia for
two years, including abortions
performed in the CARE clinic,
and the gestational age
noted in each case.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
a letter and memo relating
to Melville Creek and Cayoosh
Creek ski development.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
his records relating to
the revocation of his membership
in the Institute of Chartered
Accountants of BC.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records of a legal matter
from the City of Vancouver
relating to his complaint
against a member of the
Vancouver Police Department.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
a copy of a complaint letter
under the custody of the
Ministry Attorney General
about a police officer who
wrote letters to a local
newspaper, publicly expressing
his views against gays and
lesbians.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
a list showing street addresses
of 125 sites determined
by the City of Vancouver
to have heritage value or
significance.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
the British Columbia Gaming
Commission's Field Review
Report of the Nanaimo Immigrant
Settlement Society (NISS)
that resulted in the revocation
of the NISS's bingo licence.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
agendas, minutes and reports
for all Public Service Pension
Board and Committee meetings
since January 1, 1998 held
by the Superannuation Commission.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
any records about himself
in the Ministry of Agriculture
and Food volunteer agricultural
association files and other
files.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
a review of her request
for her own personal information
from Simon Fraser University.
In 2000 SFU refused to process
the applicant's request
for the same information
because her initial request
had been settled in 1998.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
access to the professional
qualifications of two counsellors
who provided services paid
for by the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Section of
the Workers' Compensation
Board.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
interview notes taken by
a Workers' Compensation
Board accident investigator
regarding the workplace
death her husband.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
the 1995 exclusive sponsorship
agreement between the University
of British Columbia, its
student society, and Coca-Cola
Bottling Ltd.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
the exclusive sponsorship
agreement between IDEA,
a society the members of
which are educational bodies
and includes Capilano College,
and Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd.
|
|
|
The applicant applied for
all records held by the
Insurance Corporation of
British Columbia about its
auto body shop business.
|
|
|
The applicants requested
the removal from Ministry
for Children and Families
of professional reports
or opinions with which they
disagreed. The provision
relevant to this request
is section 23 of the Child,
Family and Community Service
Regulation, B.C. Reg. 527/95.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
that the fee issued by the
Ministry of Transportation
and Highways be waived in
the public interest.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records related to the Workers'
Compensation Board's calculations
of retroactive benefits.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
a list of companies which
had been subject of complaints
to the Financial Institution
Commission.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
correction of records in
the custody of the Criminal
Justice Branch.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
a report prepared by a consultant
for the Insurance Corporation
of British Columbia about
distance-based insurance
pricing.
|
|
|
Information concerning the
applicant that is contained
in a letter written by a
third party and sent to
a University of British
Columbia (UBC) faculty member.
The Commissioner upheld
UBC's decision to withhold
third party information
under section 22(1) but
required UBC to give the
applicant access to information
withheld under section 19,
and to personal information
about the applicant withheld
under section 22(1).
|
|
|
The applicant requested
a report prepared by a consultant
for the Insurance Corporation
of British Columbia about
distance-based insurance
pricing.
|
|
|
Applicant made access requests
from the District of Saanich
and the Township of Esquimalt
regarding the communication
of his personal information
between these bodies. Issue
is whether the public bodies
conducted an adequate search.
|
|
|
Applicant requested a copy
of his own claim file from
the Workers’ Compensation
Board. Issues are whether
the WCB fulfilled its duty
to assist and whether it
was entitled to withhold
the names and medical information
of third parties.
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the Vancouver Police
Department for all records
about himself, including
those records they released
to him in a previous request.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
all records relating to
a forest company’s proposals
for construction of logging
roads and cutting of timber
in a specific watershed.
Under review was the Ministry’s
refusal to waive the fee
on the basis that the records
did not relate to a matter
of public interest. The
Commissioner confirmed the
amount of the fee estimate
issued by the Ministry,
but found the Ministry's
conclusion about the rejection
of a fee waiver to be incorrect.
|
|
|
The applicant sought
access to a list
containing the names and
addresses of scrap tire
generators in BC,
provided by another
company (third party) to
the Ministry of Water,
Land and Air Protection.
The third party sought a
review of the decision
not to withhold the
records under section
21.
|
|
|
The applicant sought access
to his adoption records
from the Ministry of Children
and Family Development (Ministry)
in order to establish his
aboriginal ancestry. Under
review was whether the Ministry
is required, by section
22(1), to refuse to disclose
third-party personal information
to the applicant. The Commissioner
held that the Ministry is
required to withhold the
personal information identifying
the putative birth father.
|
|
|
The applicant sought access
to a letter written by a
principal of the North Vancouver
School District No. 44 (School
District) to a teacher about
the applicant’s daughter,
a student at a secondary
school. Under review was
whether the School District
was required under section
22(1) to refuse access to
the severed portions of
the letter. The Commissioner
held that the School District
was required to withhold
the personal information
of the coach related to
evaluations of, or opinions
about, the actions of the
coach in the incident. Other
information was required
to be released because it
was not personal information
or because its disclosure
would not unreasonably invade
the personal privacy of
the coach or other individuals.
|
|
|
Applicants requested two
contracts for operation
of commuter rail services,
a services agreement and
a crewing agreement that
were in the custody or control
of TransLink. A third party
(CPR) requested a review
of TransLink’s decision
not to withhold the records
under section 21.
|
|
|
The applicants sought access
to letters written to the
City of Surrey by an individual
about whom the applicants
had made a noise complaint.
The City of Surrey was required
to withhold the personal
identifiers (name, address,
phone number) of the author
of the letters under section
22 (1), but was required
to release the remainder
of the letters.
|
|
|
The applicant sought correction
of personal information
in records held by the Ministry
of Children and Family Development.
The provision relevant to
this request is section
23 of the Child, Family
and Community Services Regulation,
B.C. Reg. 527/95.
|
|
|
The applicant made a request
to the Ministry of Attorney
General for copies of court
decisions relating to firearms
matters and a file relating
to a specific case under
the Firearms Act (Canada).
Section 3(1)(a), 14 and
20(1)(a) are under review.
The applicant also requested
a fee waiver on grounds
of inability to pay and
public interest.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
a ten-page report and four
appendices created during
the investigation by School
District No. 84 (School
District) of the applicant’s
complaint about another
employee (third party).
Under review was whether
or not the School District
is authorized by section
14 to withhold information
and whether or not the School
District is required by
section 22(1) to withhold
personal information. The
Commissioner held that the
School District is not authorized
by section 14 to withhold
information; however, it
may withhold some of the
information it withheld
under section 22. The School
District is required by
section 22(5) to give the
applicant a summary of her
personal information that
was supplied in confidence
by the third party or other
witnesses.
|
|
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records pertaining to his
property relating to the
Township of Langley bylaw
enforcement.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records pertaining to his
criminal history, including
records which include the
victim's personal information.
|
|
|
The applicant's requested
records to prove that disclosure
of the information would
not be an unreasonable invasion
of the personal privacy
of any third party whose
personal information is
in the records.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records pertaining to his
complaint against University
of British Columbia employees.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records pertaining to his
complaint against members
of the Vancouver Police
Department.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records relating to a harassment
investigation conducted
by Simon Fraser University.
|
|
|
The applicants requested
records relating to the
dealings of the Ministry
of Attorney General.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
third party expert opinions
obtained by the College
of Physicians and Surgeons
of British Columbia regarding
a physician's conduct.
|
|
|
The applicant sought copies
of the annual domestic beer
sale records of Molson and
Labatt Breweries for the
last five years. The Liquor
Distribution Branch holds
these records.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
a one-page record that was
held and severed by the
West Vancouver Police Department
called 'Notice of Results
of Investigation'.
|
|
|
A reporter requested copies
of in camera minutes
of the Vancouver Police
Board's meetings.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
all records held by the
College of Dental Surgeons
pertaining to her dental
treatment.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records concerning a dispute
between the Canadian Autoworkers'
Union and a McDonald's of
Canada (the applicant) franchisee,
and any draft decisions
or discussions of either
panel.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
his complete employment
records held by BC Transit
(within specified dates).
|
|
|
The applicant requested
a copy of the letter sent
to the Superintendent of
Motor Vehicles expressing
concern about his fitness
to drive.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
records held by British
Columbia Securities Commission.
|
|
|
The British Columbia Securities
Commission combined an applicant's
five requests into three.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
his records concerning a
request to the Labour Relations
Board for records relating
to a labour relations matter
involving himself. The substance
of the Hearing was the adequacy
of search for the records
and the application of section
3(1)(b).
|
|
|
The BC Nurses Union requested
copies of service contracts
between the Ministry of
Attorney General and two
private health care service
providers. Section 21 is
under review.
|
|
|
Names of Port Moody Police
Department staff who allegedly
made commitments or promises
about payment of funeral
expenses for a deceased
public body employee, and
legal opinion given regarding
payment of funeral expenses.
|
|
|
A newspaper reporter requested
records from the Ministry
of Employment and Investment
related to public financing
for the expansion by a third
party business. Sections
17 and 21 are under review.
|
|
|
Legal expenses incurred
by the Township of Langley
on behalf of an employee.
|
|
|
Whether the City of Surrey
fulfilled its duty under
section 6(1) and conducted
a reasonable search for
records.
|
|
|
Two-page draft practice
bulletin, respecting section
159 of the Criminal Code,
prepared at the Vancouver
headquarters of the Criminal
Justice Branch of the Ministry
of Attorney General.
|
|
|
Severing of a one-page record
that would identify the
individuals who telephoned
the Vancouver-Richmond Health
Board about the applicant.
|
|
|
Whether the Vancouver Police
Department fulfilled its
duty under section 6(1)
and conducted a reasonable
search for a job description.
|
|
|
Applicant’s personal information
held by the British Columbia
Institute of Technology
which responded to the request
almost 1½ years later.
|
|
|
Whether the Ministry of
Employment and Investment
fulfilled its duty under
section 6(1) and conducted
a reasonable search for
gaming policy records relating
to the installation of slot
machines at racetracks in
British Columbia.
|
|
|
Whether the British Columbia
Lottery Corporation fulfilled
its duty under section 6(1)
and conducted a reasonable
search for gaming policy
records relating to the
installation of slot machines
at racetracks in British
Columbia.
|
|
|
Whether the British Columbia
Racing Commission fulfilled
its duty under section 6(1)
and conducted a reasonable
search for gaming policy
records relating to the
installation of slot machines
at racetracks in British
Columbia.
|
|
|
Whether the Vancouver Police
Department fulfilled its
duty under section 6(1)
and conducted a reasonable
search for an unsevered
copy of a record attached
to the applicant’s request.
|
|
|
Applicant requested a copy
of the Capital Health Region's
research protocol for the
study of possible human
health effects of aerial
spraying for European gypsy
moth.
|
|
|
Annotated collective agreement
between the Workers’ Compensation
Board of British Columbia
and the Compensation Employees’
Union.
|
|
|
Canadian Union of Public
Employees submitted four
requests to the Greater
Vancouver Regional District
for records relating to
bargaining costs, and salary
and benefits for unionized
and non-unionized workers.
|
|
|
School counsellor’s notes
of interviews with the applicant’s
children in the custody
and control of The Board
of School Trustees of School
District No. 5.
|
|
|
Contract(s) held by BC Transit
for the provision of a transit
program to the Clearwater
area.
|
|
|
Applicant’s complete file
with the Insurance Corporation
of British Columbia.
|
|
|
Applicant’s child’s complete
file with the Ministry for
Children and Families.
|
|
|
Records concerning the applicant
held by the Ministry of
Social Development and Economic
Security.
|
|
|
Whether the City of White
Rock fulfilled its duty
under section 6(1) to respond
accurately and completely
with lists of suppliers
who received payments under
$10,000 for fiscal years
ending 1996, 1997 and 1998,
and a 32-page working file
report.
|
|
|
Whether the Vancouver Police
Board fulfilled its duty
under section 6(1) and conducted
a reasonable search for
records relating to the
applicant’s complaints filed
under the Police Act
against various members
of the Vancouver Police
Department.
|
|
|
Two records that had been
written about the applicant
by Malaspina University
College staff, a college
employee’s minutes of a
meeting attended by the
applicant and College representatives,
and other records about
the applicant allegedly
held by the College president.
|
|
|
Applicant requested records
relating to the employment
or educational history of
third parties employed by
the City of Vancouver.
|
|
|
City of New Westminster
records and adequacy of
search relating to Skytrain,
SAR Transit, RTP 2000, and
negotiations with the City
that relate to the applicant,
his companies or specified
individuals.
|
|
|
The applicant’s personal
injury claims to the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia,
some of which resulted in
litigation.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
a large variety of records
relating to his enrolment
in the Faculty of Law, University
of British Columbia. He
also requested that the
failing mark on his transcript
be corrected to a passing
mark.
|
|
|
Simon Fraser University’s
employment performance of
a third party.
|
|
|
|
|
The applicant requested
a copy of the Ministry of
Children and Families' 1998
legislative session ministerial
briefing book.
|
|
|
The applicant requested
copies of the e-mails in
which he and several other
third parties were mentioned.
|
|
|
A request by a teachers'
union for access to complaint
letters about a teacher.
|
|
|
Request for records in the
custody of the Ministry
of Forests that had been
sent to the Ombudsman.
|
|
|
The Sierra Legal Defence
Fund's request for a review
of a Ministry of Forests
fee estimate and subsequent
refusal to waive the fee.
|
|
|
Request for a record relating
to superferry construction
in the custody or under
the control of the British
Columbia Ferry Corporation.
|
|
|
Requests for a record relating
to superferry construction
in the custody or under
the control of the Job Protection
Commission and the British
Columbia Ferry Corporation.
|
|
|
|
|
A decision by School District
No. 73 (Kamloops-Thompson)
to withhold information
relating to harassment complaints
against the applicant.
|
|
|
A request for correspondence
directed to the Ministry
of Health and Ministry Responsible
for Seniors, pertaining
to the water quality in
the Erikson Improvement
District.
|
|
|
An applicant's request for
review of a decision of
the University of British
Columbia.
|
|
|
A decision to refuse access
to an anonymous letter about
the applicant sent to the
Workers' Compensation Board
of British Columbia.
|
|
|
A third party's request
for a review of a decision
by the Simon Fraser Health
Region to disclose the contents
of the third party's interview
given during a Community
Care Facilities Licensing
investigation.
|
|
|
An applicant's request for
review of a decision of
the University of British
Columbia to refuse to confirm
or deny the existence of
a record.
|
|
|
A decision by the University
of British Columbia to refuse
access to a third party's
personal information.
|
|
|
A request for third-party
personal information in
a Vancouver Police Department
report.
|
|
|
Disclosure of divisional
planning records by the
University of Victoria.
|
|
|
The obligation of the British
Columbia Lottery Corporation
to assist an applicant under
section 6 of the Act.
|
|
|
The withholding of an applicant's
medical and psychiatric
records by the Dawson Creek
& District Hospital.
|
|
|
A request to Simon Fraser
University for access to
the "Campus Crime Survey".
|
|
|
No. 35 (Langley); School
District No. 75 (Mission);
School District No. 43 (Coquitlam);
School District No. 38 (Richmond);
School District No. 41 (Burnaby);
School District No. 36 (Surrey);
and School District No.
39 (Vancouver).
|
|
|
The Corporation of Delta's
refusal to grant a fee waiver.
|
|
|
A decision by the Ministry
of Aboriginal Affairs to
sever information from records
dealing with the Whistler
Land Corporation and the
disposal or sale of Crown
Lands.
|
|
|
A decision by the Ministry
of Environment, Lands and
Parks to sever information
from records dealing with
the Whistler Land Corporation
and the disposal or sale
of Crown Lands.
|
|
|
An applicant's request for
access to a victim impact
statement made at his parole
hearing.
|
|
|
A decision by the College
of Physicians and Surgeons
of British Columbia to refuse
the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation's request for
access to records associated
with the conduct of a physician.
|
|
|
A decision by the Ministry
of Finance and Corporate
Relations to withhold the
names and addresses of property
owners from copies of Certificates
of Forfeiture.
|
|
|
|
|
A decision by the Workers'
Compensation Board to withhold
personal information relating
to an investigation.
|
|
|
An applicant and a third
party's request for a review
of decisions made by Greater
Vancouver Mental Health
Services Society with respect
to access to a complaint
file.
|
|
|
|
|
A decision by BC Hydro to
release third party information
contained in a record requested
by an applicant.
|
|
|
A decision by the Larkin
Water Works District to
refuse access to water usage
records containing personal
information about third
parties.
|
|
|
A decision by the British
Columbia Securities Commission
to sever certain information
about third parties from
records that an applicant
requested.
|
|
|
A request for review of
the City of Vancouver's
denial of a request for
a fee waiver.
|
|
|
A decision by Simon Fraser
University to sever information
from a report of a Committee
of Inquiry.
|
|
|
A decision by the Ministry
of Social Services to refuse
an applicant access to the
institutional records of
her deceased sister.
|
|
|
Whether records relating
to a contractor and subcontractor
are under the control of
the BC Hydro.
|
|
|
A decision by the Ministry
of Social Services to withhold
a series of letters.
|
|
|
A decision by the Office
of the Public Trustee to
withhold a legal opinion
from an applicant.
|
|
|
A refusal by BC Hydro to
grant access to records
on the basis of solicitor-client
privilege.
|
|
|
A decision by the Ministry
of Environment, Lands and
Parks to withhold Digital
Map Data from the Western
Canada Wilderness Committee.
|
|
|
A request for a waiver of
fees by Vanden Berg and
Associates Inc., representing
the Penticton and Similkameen
Indian Bands, with respect
to information held by the
Ministry of Employment and
Investment.
|
|
|
A request for review of
a decision by the Ministry
of Transportation and Highways
to give partial access to
a letter written by a third
party.
|
|
|
A third party's request
for a review of a decision
by the Ministry of Transportation
and Highways to give an
applicant access to two
letters that she had written
to the Ministry.
|
|
|
A decision by the Ministry
of Social Services that
a request for personal information
did not fall within the
scope of the Freedom of
Information and Protection
of Privacy Act.
|
|
|
A Decision by the Ministry
of Health to withhold from
a parent a series of interviews
concerning a child's daycare.
|
|
|
A decision by the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia
to withhold records relating
to the Motor Vehicle Registration
database.
|
|
|
|
|
A decision by the Ministries
of Health and Finance and
Corporate Relations to refuse
access to computer backup
tapes containing deleted
e-mail.
|
|
|
A decision by the Office
of the Premier to refuse
access to records relating
to allegations of sexual
harassment against a former
Cabinet Minister.
|
|
|
A decision by the District
of Squamish to refuse access
to the addresses of electors
contained in a List of Registered
Electors.
|
|
|
A refusal by Islands Trust
and the Saturna Island Local
Trust Committee to grant
access to legal opinions
concerning section 992 of
the Municipal Act.
|
|
|
A decision by the City of
Nelson to refuse access
by the media to records
of long distance telephone
calls made from its offices.
|
|
|
A decision by the City of
Vancouver to refuse access
by the Kitsilano News to
records of long distance
telephone calls made to
four specified numbers.
|
|
|
A decision by the City of
Vancouver to refuse access
by the NDP Caucus to all
fax, telephone, and cellular
telephone logs for three
separate time periods.
|
|
|
A request by a parent for
access to records of a Delta
School Board meeting relating
to disciplinary action against
a teacher.
|
|
|
A refusal by the District
of North Vancouver to disclose
an interim legal bill about
a current court case.
|
|
|
A decision by the Victoria
Police Department to sever
information and withhold
law enforcement records
from an applicant.
|
|
|
A request by the Cowichan
Estuary Preservation Society
for environmental test results
submitted to the Ministry
of Environment, Lands and
Parks by Fletcher Challenge
Canada Limited.
|
|
|
The City of Vancouver's
denial of the New Democrat
Government Caucus's request
for a fee waiver.
|
|
|
A Request for access to
records of the Workers Compensation
Board.
|
|
|
A refusal by the Office
of the Public Trustee to
disclose information concerning
the estate of an applicant's
deceased mother.
|
|
|
A Request for competition
records held by the Ministry
of Government Services.
|
|
|
A Decision by the Ministry
of Finance and Corporate
Relations to refuse access
to records from an internal
audit concerning a conflict
of interest investigation.
|
|
|
A refusal by the Ministry
of Social Services to disclose
an adult daughter's personal
information to her mother.
|
|
|
A Request for internal audit
report in the custody of
the Ministry of Attorney
General.
|
|
|
A Decision by School District
68 (Nanaimo) to release
records about severance
settlements provided to
two former employees.
|
|
|
A Request for review of
a decision by the Ministry
of Social Services to sever
certain information from
Family Services records
about a child protection
matter.
|
|
|
A Request for access to
a letter from a third party
responding to a complaint
to the Town of View Royal.
|
|
|
A Request for access to
records held by the Labour
Relations Board, consisting
of two Industrial Relations
Officer's reports and a
draft letter.
|
|
|
A Request for review of
a decision by the Ministry
of Social Services not to
disclose to the Canada Ports
Corporation the date that
a third party commenced
employment with the Ministry.
|
|
|
A Request for access to
a behavioural investigator's
report to the Office of
the Chief Coroner on the
death of Patient X at the
Maples Adolescent Treatment
Centre.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Complaint Records held by
the City of Langley.
|
|
|
A Request for access to
records pertaining to Flora
Island held by the Ministry
of Attorney-General.
|
|
|
A Request for access to
records held by the Labour
Relations Board (The reports
of an Industrial Relations
Officer concerning an application
for certification of a union). |
|
|
A Request for access to
the name of a complainant
in a record held by the
Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks concerning
the Saturna Island landfill.
|
|
|
A request for records concerning
an adult adoptee held by
the Ministry of Social Services.
|
|
|
A Request for access to
complaint records of the
Employment Standards Branch
of the Ministry of Skills,
Training and Labour.
|
|
|
A request for access to
records of the Office of
the Public Trustee of British
Columbia.
|
|
|
A complaint from the Radio
and Television News Directors
Association of Canada concerning
the handling of a request
by the Ministry of Attorney-General
and the search fees that
the Ministry proposed to
charge.
|
|
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
the Identity of the Author
of a Letter to the Motor
Vehicle Branch of the Ministry
of Transportation and Highways.
|
|
|
A Request by The Province
for Access to Suicide Records
held by the Ministry of
Health and the Ministry
Responsible for Seniors.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
a Record of the British
Columbia Hydro and Power
Authority.
|
|
|
A Request for a list of
severance packages awarded
to non-union employees of
Shaughnessy Hospital.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Records of the Criminal
Justice Branch of the Ministry
of The Attorney General.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Records of the Worker's
Compensation Board of British
Columbia. A Request to Review
a Decision by the Workers
Compensation Board of British
Columbia to Disclose a Record.
|
|
|
A Decision to Withhold Records
of the Ministry of Health
and the Ministry Responsible
for Seniors.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Records of the Ministry
of The Attorney-General.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Records of B.C. Transit.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Records of the Ministry
of Health and Ministry of
Responsible for Seniors.
|
|
|
A Decision to Release Records
of the Ministry of Education.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Records of the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia.
|
|
|
A Request by the Wellington
Insurance Company for Access
to Records of the Insurance
Corporation.
|
|
|
A Request to Review a Decision
of the Ministry of Aboriginal
Affairs.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Records of the B.C. Police
Commission.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Records of the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Records of the Ministry
of Health and Dogwood Lodge.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Records of the Ministry
of Social Services.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Records of the Ministry
of Finance and Corporate
Relations.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Records of the Ministry
of Employment and Investment
and the Office of the Premier.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Records Relating to the
Performance of Abortion
Services for the Ministry
of Health.
|
|
|
A Request for a Report from
the Insurance Corporation
of British Columbia.
|
|
|
A Request for a Report from
the Insurance Corporation
of British Columbia.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Psychological Records held
by the B.C. Board of Parole,
Ministry of The Attorney-General.
|
|
|
A Request for Review by
Mr. Gordon D. Frampton for
Access to Survey Records
held by the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food.
|
|
|
A Request for Access to
Ministry of Social Services
Records.
|
|
|
Ministry of Finance and
Corporate Relations/Public
Service Employees Relations
Commission.
|
