Source: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/rulings/decisions.aspx
Timestamp: 2014-03-09 09:38:11
Document Index: 343953472

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5']

Decisions – Office of the B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner
Use quotation marks for an EXACT search: “results of investigation”
Put a plus sign before the words that must be included in search results: +privacy Put a minus sign before the words you don’t want to appear in your results: -audit Use AND to limit your search results to items containing all keywords: laptop AND “privacy breach”
Use OR to find results that contain at least one of your keywords: investigation OR report Use NOT to exclude results that contain a specific word or phrase: NOT “section 22”
Results Including:
Document Attribute FieldsPDF AttachmentsWebsite Pages
Search by Document Date:
OrderDecisionInvestigation ReportSpecial ReportMediation SummaryAdjudicationNews ReleaseGuidance DocumentSpeechLetter or Public Comment
In a manner similar to Orders, the OIPC can issue legally binding
Decisions. While Orders address complaints and requests for review
received by the OIPC, Decisions address the following specific
A decision on preliminary issues in a specific dispute, or to
confirm whether a matter is within the OIPC's jurisdiction.
An application by a public body to collect personal information
from a source other than the individual.
An application by a public body to disregard access requests on
the grounds of their repetitious or systematic nature, which
unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body,
and/or the access requests are of a frivolous or vexatious
A request that the Commissioner exercise his/her discretion
not to proceed
with an inquiry in relation to a complaint or request for review
(FIPPA only).
How to use this table: Decisions can be sorted
by date, number and title -- click on the column heading to sort by
that category. Use the drop-down menu to filter by legislation
type or year. Leading Cases contain extensive discussion of a
specific section of the Act.
All201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003200220012000199919981997199619951994
Legislation: select
Public Sector (FIPPA)Private Sector (PIPA)All Legislation
Vancouver Coastal Health Authority asked that the OIPC not hold an inquiry into its decision to with... moreVancouver Coastal Health Authority asked that the OIPC not hold an inquiry into its decision to withhold information in response to an applicant’s request. The adjudicator granted VCHA’s request because it was plain and obvious that FIPPA did not apply to the information requested and therefore the information could be withheld. F12-01
The City requested authorization to disregard four outstanding requests from the client, as well as ... moreThe City requested authorization to disregard four outstanding requests from the client, as well as other relief. The adjudicator found that the requests were not repetitious or systematic and dismissed the application of the City.
F11-04
The College requested relief from any future requests of the physician. There are no requests curren... moreThe College requested relief from any future requests of the physician. There are no requests currently open. The physician had already received all of his own personal information. The College does not require relief under s. 43 of FIPPA to be able to refuse to provide additional copies of records it had already provided to him. The adjudicator declined to give the College the formal authority under s. 43 to disregard future requests.
F11-03
The Ministry requested authorization to disregard two outstanding requests from the client, as well ... moreThe Ministry requested authorization to disregard two outstanding requests from the client, as well as other relief. The Ministry is authorized to disregard the requests on the grounds that they are repetitious and unreasonably interfere with the Ministry’s operations. The Ministry is further authorized, for five years from the date of this decision, to disregard any future requests from the client in excess of one open request at a time.
The Ministry asked, under s. 56, that an inquiry not be held respecting the Ministry’s decision to s... moreThe Ministry asked, under s. 56, that an inquiry not be held respecting the Ministry’s decision to sever information from transcripts derived from certain interview notes. The Ministry argued the matter was moot because the applicant had already obtained an unsevered version of the records through a BC Human Rights Tribunal proceeding. In the alternative, the Ministry submitted it was plain and obvious that s. 22 of FIPPA applied to the records. The Ministry’s request was denied. The matter was not moot because the disclosure of the unsevered records through the BC Human Rights Tribunal process was restricted to their use in that proceeding only. The applicant was requesting the records for use in another proceeding. Further, it was not plain and obvious that s. 22 applied to the information in dispute.
The applicant requested the Law Society provide him certain correspondence between Davis LLP and thi... moreThe applicant requested the Law Society provide him certain correspondence between Davis LLP and third parties, that were copied to the Law Society and that related to him. The Law Society disclosed some records but withheld others claiming they were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Law Society submitted that it was plain and obvious that s. 14 of FIPPA applied and requested that discretion be exercised to not hold an inquiry in this matter. The adjudicator exercised his discretion to grant the Law Society’s request, finding that it was plain and obvious that solicitor-client privilege applied and the applicant had not made any cogent argument to the contrary. F10-15
The respondent requested access to emails concerning a room in an SFU residence. SFU provided acces... moreThe respondent requested access to emails concerning a room in an SFU residence. SFU provided access to the requested records, but severed portions under s. 13 of FIPPA as advice or recommendations. The respondent requested a review of SFU’s s. 13 decision and also argued that s. 25 (public interest override) applied. SFU asked that an inquiry not be held as s. 13 clearly applies. The adjudicator concluded that it is plain and obvious that the withheld portions of the records are advice or recommendations and it is also not necessary to consider whether s. 25 applies. Adjudicator granted Simon Fraser University’s request that this matter not proceed to inquiry.
Adjudicator granted the Regional District of Central Okanagan's request that this matter not proceed... moreAdjudicator granted the Regional District of Central Okanagan's request that this matter not proceed to inquiry.
Adjudicator denied the Abbotsford Police Department's request that this matter not proceed to inquir... moreAdjudicator denied the Abbotsford Police Department's request that this matter not proceed to inquiry.
Adjudicator granted the Ministry of Attorney General's request that this matter not proceed to inqui... moreAdjudicator granted the Ministry of Attorney General's request that this matter not proceed to inquiry. F10-11
Three of the respondent?s requests are systematic and would unreasonably interfere with the Ministri... moreThree of the respondent?s requests are systematic and would unreasonably interfere with the Ministries? operations. The fourth is vexatious. The Ministry is authorized to disregard the outstanding requests and is also entitled to other relief.
Adjudicator granted BC Housing’s request that this matter not proceed to inquiry.
Provincial Health Services Authority and Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia
The respondent‘s request of March 2009 for records regarding his ongoing dispute with the PHSA, exce... moreThe respondent‘s request of March 2009 for records regarding his ongoing dispute with the PHSA, except with respect to solicitor-client communications, is not frivolous or vexatious or systematic or repetitious. There are options available to the PHSA under FIPPA for reducing the administrative burden of responding to this portion of the request. The PHSA is authorized to disregard the portion of the request regarding solicitor-client communications and any future requests for such records for two years.
Preliminary / Jurisdictional
Senior Adjudicator finds that the Commissioner has the authority to investigate the Ministry of Educ... moreSenior Adjudicator finds that the Commissioner has the authority to investigate the Ministry of Education’s exercise of discretion in deciding not to renew a research agreement.
Adjudicator denied BCLC’s request that an inquiry not proceed on grounds of abuse of process under F... moreAdjudicator denied BCLC’s request that an inquiry not proceed on grounds of abuse of process under FIPPA.
Senior Adjudicator's decision to grant the Public Body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the... moreSenior Adjudicator's decision to grant the Public Body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be held.
Adjudicator's decision to deny public body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be ... moreAdjudicator's decision to deny public body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be held.
Adjudicator's decision that new evidence does not meet the test for re-opening Order F08-13. Other ... moreAdjudicator's decision that new evidence does not meet the test for re-opening Order F08-13. Other issues raised on the judicial reviews also do not trigger re-opening. Consideration of remaining records could proceed if order were not stayed.
Adjudicator’s ruling that Ministry properly disclosed personal information to credit agency under s.... moreAdjudicator’s ruling that Ministry properly disclosed personal information to credit agency under s. 33.1 of FIPPA.
Adjudicator's decision that notes are not in the custody or under the control of UBC. Hearing will ... moreAdjudicator's decision that notes are not in the custody or under the control of UBC. Hearing will not proceed on whether UBC met its duty to assist under s.6 of FIPPA.
F09-05
Adjudicator's ruling on whether Providence Health Care Society is a public body under FIPPA.
F09-04
The Ministry requested authorization to disregard eight outstanding requests from the respondent, as... moreThe Ministry requested authorization to disregard eight outstanding requests from the respondent, as well as other relief. The Ministry is authorized to disregard four of the eight requests on the grounds that they are repetitious and unreasonably interfere with the Ministry’s operations. The Ministry is further authorized, for two years from the date of this decision, to disregard any future requests from the respondent in excess of one open request at a time.
F09-03
F09-02
F09-01
Commissioner's decision on public body's argument that an access applicant is not an "appropriate pe... moreCommissioner's decision on public body's argument that an access applicant is not an "appropriate person."
Senior Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56.
MoE requested authorization to disregard requests made by the respondent or others acting on her beh... moreMoE requested authorization to disregard requests made by the respondent or others acting on her behalf. The respondent’s requests were found to be vexatious and MoE is authorized to disregard them to the date of the application. With the exception of one open access request at a time, MoE is also authorized to disregard the respondent’s requests for a two-year period from the date of this decision.
MAL requested authorization to disregard requests made by the respondent or others acting on her beh... moreMAL requested authorization to disregard requests made by the respondent or others acting on her behalf. The respondent’s requests were found to be vexatious and MAL is authorized to disregard them to the date of the application. With the exception of one open access request at a time, MAL is also authorized to disregard the respondent’s requests for a two-year period from the date of this decision.
F08-08
F08-06
Senior Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56 regarding s. 22.
F08-05
Senior Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56 regarding s. 75.
F08-07
Commissioner's decision on effect of third party requests for review.
F08-04
Adjudicator's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56.
F08-03
The Board of Education of School District No. 34 (Abbotsford)
The School District requested authorization to disregard requests made by the respondent or others a... moreThe School District requested authorization to disregard requests made by the respondent or others acting on the respondent’s behalf. The School District has not met its burden to demonstrate that, for the purposes of s. 43, the requests are frivolous or vexatious or repetitive and systematic.
F08-02
Senior Adjudicator's ruling on applicant's request to expand the scope of an inquiry at the inquiry ... moreSenior Adjudicator's ruling on applicant's request to expand the scope of an inquiry at the inquiry stage.
F08-01
Provincial Health Services Authority and Children's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia
The respondent’s request of May 17, 2006 is not frivolous or vexatious. The PHSA is not authorized t... moreThe respondent’s request of May 17, 2006 is not frivolous or vexatious. The PHSA is not authorized to disregard this or any future requests from the respondent.
F07-07
Board of Education of School District No. 49 (Central Coast)
Commissioner's decision to deny public body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be... moreCommissioner's decision to deny public body's request that an inquiry under Part 5 of the Act not be held.
F07-03
Commissioner's ruling on public body's request to add a late exception.
F07-02
Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services and Ministry of Education
The respondent’s past and outstanding requests are systematic and would unreasonably interfere with ... moreThe respondent’s past and outstanding requests are systematic and would unreasonably interfere with the Ministries’ operations. They are entitled to relief, in the circumstances, even in relation to requests to which they had not responded when required under FIPPA. The Ministries are authorized to disregard the outstanding and certain other requests.
F06-10
The Board of School Trustees for School District No. 71 (Comox)
Commissioner’s ruling on attempt by unions representing third-party teacher to argue applicability o... moreCommissioner’s ruling on attempt by unions representing third-party teacher to argue applicability of discretionary disclosure exceptions not applied by the public body.
The Board of School Trustees, School District No. 8 (Kootenay Lake)
F06-06
Legislative Assembly & Office of the Clerk of Committees
Commissioner's ruling on jurisdiction to hold an inquiry on records and correspondence submitted to ... moreCommissioner's ruling on jurisdiction to hold an inquiry on records and correspondence submitted to a Special Committee of the Legislative Assembly held by the Office of the Clerk of Committees of the Legislative Assembly.
F06-05
Commissioner's ruling on admissibility of expert evidence regarding s. 17 and s. 21 harm.
F06-04
F06-03
UBC applied for authorization under ss. 43(a) and (b) to disregard the respondent’s outstanding requ... moreUBC applied for authorization under ss. 43(a) and (b) to disregard the respondent’s outstanding requests and any future requests for two years. For the purposes of s. 43(a), respondent’s requests found to be systematic and unreasonably to interfere with UBC’s operations. UBC is authorized to disregard respondent’s outstanding requests, requests received between date of application and date of decision. UBC is further authorized for two years to disregard respondent’s requests in excess of one open request at a time and is not required to spend more than 50 hours per year responding to respondent’s requests in each of the two years following this decision. It is not necessary to consider s. 43(b), although respondent’s requests had some trivial and purposeless aspects to them
Regional District of Comox-Strathcona
Commissioner's decision not to proceed to inquiry under s. 56.
F05-05
Commissioner's decision not to hold any inquiry because of mootness under s. 56,
F05-03
F05-02
BC Hydro applied for relief under s. 43 on the grounds that respondent’s requests were repetitious a... moreBC Hydro applied for relief under s. 43 on the grounds that respondent’s requests were repetitious and systematic and unreasonably interfered with BC Hydro’s operations, and that the requests were also frivolous and vexatious. BC Hydro entitled to relief under ss. 43(a) and (b) respecting last two requests, which are both systematic and repetitious, and unreasonably interfere with operations, and frivolous and vexatious.
Vancouver Island Health Authority (“VIHA”) under s. 56 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“Act”) regarding a request for review by an applicant under s. 52(1) of the Act
Request for review by an applicant under s. 52(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“Act”) — Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (“Ministry”)
Request by The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 42 (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows) (“School District”), public body, under s. 56 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“Act”)
Auth. (s. 43) 04-01
VIHA applied for relief under s. 43 on the grounds that respondent’s requests were repetitious and s... moreVIHA applied for relief under s. 43 on the grounds that respondent’s requests were repetitious and systematic, and unreasonably interfered with VIHA’s operations, and that the requests were also frivolous and vexatious. Most requests not made under s. 5 of the Act and s. 43 therefore not applicable. Access requests do not meet the test of s. 43.
Application by Translink to have the request by an applicant to proceed to an inquiry dismissed under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“Act”)
Adjudicator's decision to deny Translink's request that an inquiry not be held under s. 56(1).
Auth. (s. 43) 03-01
The respondent’s requests are not systematic, but even if they were systematic (or repetitious), res... moreThe respondent’s requests are not systematic, but even if they were systematic (or repetitious), responding to them does not unreasonably interfere with the Ministry’s operations. Nor is relief warranted on the basis that the respondent’s requests are frivolous or vexatious.
Auth. (s.42) 03-01
Request for Review – Working Opportunity Fund, Applicant (“WOF”) – Ministry of Attorney General (“Ministry”)
Commissioner's decision on reconsideration of earlier decisions by his delegates to grant the WOF an... moreCommissioner's decision on reconsideration of earlier decisions by his delegates to grant the WOF an extension of time, under s. 53(2)(b).
Request for review by an applicant under s. 52(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act - – Simon Fraser University (“SFU”), public body
Inquiry under Part 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act – Robert Matas, The Globe and Mail (“applicant”) – Ministry of Attorney General (“Ministry”)
Ruling regarding application of s. 3(1)(h) to certain defence funding records.
Inquiry under Part 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act – Ann Rees (“applicant”) – College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (“College”) – Ministry of Health Services (“Ministry”) Preliminary / Jurisdictional
Commissioner is satisfied that the Ministry has custody and control, and the College of Pharmacists ... moreCommissioner is satisfied that the Ministry has custody and control, and the College of Pharmacists has control, of a machine-readable PharmaNet record from which the requested record can be created.
Auth. (s.43) 02-02
The applicant, having settled his personal injury claim with ICBC in 1999, has made
18 access reques... moreThe applicant, having settled his personal injury claim with ICBC in 1999, has made
18 access requests for information related to the settled claim. Having disclosed to the applicant all information related to the claim, and related matters, ICBC is entitled to the relief it seeks under s. 43(b) respecting the last two requests, which are frivolous and vexatious.
Auth. (s.43) 02-01
The Ministry has received over 200 access requests from the respondent since 1994, with approximatel... moreThe Ministry has received over 200 access requests from the respondent since 1994, with approximately 95 requests having been made between September and December 2001.
Because the 95 access requests are repetitious and responding to them would unreasonably interfere with the Ministry’s operations, the Ministry is authorized to disregard them. The respondent is entitled to replace them with not more than two new requests before January 1,
2003, with the Ministry not being required to spend more than 7 hours responding to each such request. The Ministry is not authorized to refuse to respond to requests for one year from the date
of this authorization, but between the date of this decision and September 17, 2004, it is authorized to disregard any requests in excess of one open request from the respondent at any given time and any request that seeks records already disclosed to the respondent. The Ministry
is not required to spend more than 7 hours responding to each request.
Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection (“Ministry”) – Order 01-52
Decision to deny the request by the Guide Outfitters Association and two guides to re-open the inqui... moreDecision to deny the request by the Guide Outfitters Association and two guides to re-open the inquiry leading to Order 01-52.
Inquiry under Part 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act – Lheidli T’enneh First Nation (“applicant”) – Ministry of Attorney General (“public body”)
Denial of request by applicant's counsel to review in camera submissions and affidavits and to revie... moreDenial of request by applicant's counsel to review in camera submissions and affidavits and to review unsevered copies of the records in dispute.
Release of Resident Lists to Elections BC
Advice that Elections BC has no authority or reason to request lists of residents from residential c... moreAdvice that Elections BC has no authority or reason to request lists of residents from residential care homes for purposes of voter registration, although homes may provide such lists with residents' consent.
Auth. (s.42) 01-01
Ministry of Health & Ministry Responsible for Seniors
Inquiry Regarding Canadian Pacific Railway Company ("CPR"), Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority ("Translink"), 'The Vancouver Province' and another applicant
Decision to proceed with inquiry using a delegate after considering objections by CPR (third party) ... moreDecision to proceed with inquiry using a delegate after considering objections by CPR (third party) that the Commissioner is biased and objections to including, Translink, the public body as a party.
Request for Review between an applicant and the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner
Decision that certain records of the Police Complaint Commissioner are excluded from the scope of th... moreDecision that certain records of the Police Complaint Commissioner are excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by s. 3(1)(c) of that Act.
Request for Review between [the Applicant] and the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner
Decision that Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to proceed with an inquiry regarding certain r... moreDecision that Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to proceed with an inquiry regarding certain records in the custody or under the control of the Police Complaint Commissioner, on the grounds that they are excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by s. 66.1 of the Police Act.
Complaint Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regarding ICBC’s Collection of Personal Information
Dismissal of complaint about ICBC including a driver's weight on driver's license.
Request for Review between [the Applicant] and the Vancouver Police Department
Decision that there is no issue remaining for Commissioner to determine in an applicant's request fo... moreDecision that there is no issue remaining for Commissioner to determine in an applicant's request for review of a decision by the Vancouver Police Department.
Request for Review between [the Applicant] and the British Columbia Police Commission
Decision that the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to proceed with an inquiry regarding an ap... moreDecision that the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to proceed with an inquiry regarding an applicant's request for review of the BC Police Complaints Commission's search for requested records, on the grounds that the BC Police Complaints Commission was not a public body under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act at the time of the request.
Auth. (s.43) 99-01
Applicant public body had received 3,874 requests, over approximately five years, of which 24 were m... moreApplicant public body had received 3,874 requests, over approximately five years, of which 24 were made by respondent individual. No evidence presented by public body of unreasonable interference with its operations caused by the respondent's access requests. Guidance given by Commissioner as to kinds of evidence needed on such issues.
City of Vancouver Section 43
As a result of a successful judicial review, a reconsideration of this decision is attached.
B.C. Transit Corporation Section 43
are my rights?
the Commissioner help me?