Summaries of Orders of the Information & Privacy Commissioner

Table of Contents

Orders Under Judicial Reviews

2007

07-01 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.
07-02 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.
07-03 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.
07-04 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.
07-05 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.
07-06 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.
07-07 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.
07-08 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.
07-09 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).
07-10 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.
07-11 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.
07-12 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.
07-13 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.
07-14 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
07-15 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.
07-19 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)
07-20 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.
07-23 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.
07-24 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.

2006

06-02 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.
06-04 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).

2005

05-01 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.
05-02 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.
05-03 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).
05-11 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.
05-12 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.
05-13 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.
05-16 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.
05-17 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.
05-20 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.
05-21 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.
05-22 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.
05-23 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.
05-26 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.
05-27 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.
05-28 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.
05-32 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.
05-33 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.
05-35 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.
05-37 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.

2004

04-01 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.
04-02 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.
04-03 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.
04-06 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.
04-07 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.
04-08 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.
04-09 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.
04-10 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.
04-11 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.
04-12 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.
04-13 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.
04-14 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.
04-15 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.
04-16 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.
04-17 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.
04-18 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.
04-19 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.
04-20 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).
04-21 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).
04-22 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.
04-23 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.
04-24 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.
04-25 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.  
04-26 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.
04-27 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.
04-29 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).
04-30 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.
04-31 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.
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.
04-33 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).
04-34 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.
04-35 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.
04-36 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.
04-37 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.
04-38 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.

2003

03-01 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.
03-02 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.
03-03 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.
03-04 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.
03-05 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).
03-06 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.
03-07 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.
03-08 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.
03-09 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.
03-10 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.
03-11 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.
03-12 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.
03-13 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.
03-14 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.

2002

02-01 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.
02-02 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.
02-03 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.
02-04 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.
02-05 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.
02-06 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.
02-07 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.
02-08 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.
02-09 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.
02-10 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.
02-11 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.
02-12 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.
02-13 & 02-14 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.
02-15 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.
02-16 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.
02-17 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.
02-18 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.
02-19 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.
02-20 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.
02-21 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.
02-22 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.
02-23 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.”
02-24 The applicant made a request to the Ministry of Attorney General for records that he sent to the Attorney General in the 1990s.
02-25 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.
02-39 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.
02-40 The applicant requested records related to alcohol and drug issues from British Columbia Archives. Sections 6(1), 7 and 10 are under review.
02-41 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.
02-42 The applicant requested all Workers’ Compensation Board records pertaining to her that were outside of her claim file. Section 6(1) is under review.
02-44 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).
02-45 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.
02-46 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.
02-47 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.
02-48 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.
02-49 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).
02-50 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).
02-51 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.
02-52 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.
02-53 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).
02-54 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.
02-55 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).
02-56 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.
02-57 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
02-58 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.
02-59 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.
02-60 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.

2001

1-2001 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.
2-2001 The applicant requested a letter and memo relating to Melville Creek and Cayoosh Creek ski development.
4-2001 The applicant requested his records relating to the revocation of his membership in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of BC.
5-2001 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.
8-2001 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.
11-2001 The applicant requested a list showing street addresses of 125 sites determined by the City of Vancouver to have heritage value or significance.
12-2001 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.
14-2001 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.
15-2001 The applicant requested any records about himself in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food volunteer agricultural association files and other files.
16-2001 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.
18-2001 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.
19-2001 The applicant requested interview notes taken by a Workers' Compensation Board accident investigator regarding the workplace death her husband.
20-2001 The applicant requested the 1995 exclusive sponsorship agreement between the University of British Columbia, its student society, and Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd.
21-2001 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.
22-2001 The applicant applied for all records held by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia about its auto body shop business.
23-2001 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.
24-2001 The applicant requested that the fee issued by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways be waived in the public interest.
25-2001 The applicant requested records related to the Workers' Compensation Board's calculations of retroactive benefits.
26-2001 The applicant requested a list of companies which had been subject of complaints to the Financial Institution Commission.
27-2001 The applicant requested correction of records in the custody of the Criminal Justice Branch.
28-2001 The applicant requested a report prepared by a consultant for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia about distance-based insurance pricing.
30-2001 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).
31-2001 The applicant requested a report prepared by a consultant for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia about distance-based insurance pricing.
32-2001 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.
33-2001 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.
34-2001 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.
35-2001 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.
36-2001 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.
37-2001 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.
38-2001 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.
39-2001 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.
48-2001 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.
50-2001 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.
51-2001 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.
53-2001 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.

2000

1-2000 The applicant requested records pertaining to his property relating to the Township of Langley bylaw enforcement.
2-2000 The applicant requested records pertaining to his criminal history, including records which include the victim's personal information.
3-2000 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.
4-2000 The applicant requested records pertaining to his complaint against University of British Columbia employees.
5-2000 The applicant requested records pertaining to his complaint against members of the Vancouver Police Department.
6-2000 The applicant requested records relating to a harassment investigation conducted by Simon Fraser University.
7-2000 The applicants requested records relating to the dealings of the Ministry of Attorney General.
8-2000 The applicant requested third party expert opinions obtained by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia regarding a physician's conduct.
10-2000 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.
13-2000 The applicant requested a one-page record that was held and severed by the West Vancouver Police Department called 'Notice of Results of Investigation'.
14-2000 A reporter requested copies of in camera minutes of the Vancouver Police Board's meetings.
15-2000 The applicant requested all records held by the College of Dental Surgeons pertaining to her dental treatment.
16-2000 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.
17-2000 The applicant requested his complete employment records held by BC Transit (within specified dates).
18-2000 The applicant requested a copy of the letter sent to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles expressing concern about his fitness to drive.
19-2000 The applicant requested records held by British Columbia Securities Commission.
20-2000 The British Columbia Securities Commission combined an applicant's five requests into three.
21-2000 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).
22-2000 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.
23-2000 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.
24-2000 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.
25-2000 Legal expenses incurred by the Township of Langley on behalf of an employee.
26-2000 Whether the City of Surrey fulfilled its duty under section 6(1) and conducted a reasonable search for records.
27-2000 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.
28-2000 Severing of a one-page record that would identify the individuals who telephoned the Vancouver-Richmond Health Board about the applicant.
30-2000 Whether the Vancouver Police Department fulfilled its duty under section 6(1) and conducted a reasonable search for a job description.
31-2000 Applicant’s personal information held by the British Columbia Institute of Technology which responded to the request almost 1½ years later.
32-2000 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.
33-2000 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.
34-2000 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.
35-2000 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.
36-2000 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.
38-2000 Annotated collective agreement between the Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia and the Compensation Employees’ Union.
39-2000 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.
40-2000 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.
41-2000 Contract(s) held by BC Transit for the provision of a transit program to the Clearwater area.
42-2000 Applicant’s complete file with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.
43-2000 Applicant’s child’s complete file with the Ministry for Children and Families.
44-2000 Records concerning the applicant held by the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security.
45-2000 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.
46-2000 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.
47-2000 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.
48-2000 Applicant requested records relating to the employment or educational history of third parties employed by the City of Vancouver.
49-2000 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.
50-2000 The applicant’s personal injury claims to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, some of which resulted in litigation.
51-2000 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.
53-2000 Simon Fraser University’s employment performance of a third party.

1999

332-1999 The applicant requested a copy of the Ministry of Children and Families' 1998 legislative session ministerial briefing book.
330-1999 The applicant requested copies of the e-mails in which he and several other third parties were mentioned.
302-1999 A request by a teachers' union for access to complaint letters about a teacher.
297-1999 Request for records in the custody of the Ministry of Forests that had been sent to the Ombudsman.
293-1999 The Sierra Legal Defence Fund's request for a review of a Ministry of Forests fee estimate and subsequent refusal to waive the fee.
289-1999 Request for a record relating to superferry construction in the custody or under the control of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation.
288-1999 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.

1998

286-1998 A decision by School District No. 73 (Kamloops-Thompson) to withhold information relating to harassment complaints against the applicant.
282-1998 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.
280-1998 An applicant's request for review of a decision of the University of British Columbia.
275-1998 A decision to refuse access to an anonymous letter about the applicant sent to the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia.
271-1998 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.
270-1998 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.
269-1998 A decision by the University of British Columbia to refuse access to a third party's personal information.
268-1998 A request for third-party personal information in a Vancouver Police Department report.
267-1998 Disclosure of divisional planning records by the University of Victoria.
266-1998 The obligation of the British Columbia Lottery Corporation to assist an applicant under section 6 of the Act.
265-1998 The withholding of an applicant's medical and psychiatric records by the Dawson Creek & District Hospital.
264-1998 A request to Simon Fraser University for access to the "Campus Crime Survey".
261-1998 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).
259-1998 The Corporation of Delta's refusal to grant a fee waiver.
251-1998 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.
250-1998 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.
222-1998 An applicant's request for access to a victim impact statement made at his parole hearing.
221-1998 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.
217-1998 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.

1997

194-1997 A decision by the Workers' Compensation Board to withhold personal information relating to an investigation.
144-1997 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.

1996

101-1996 A decision by BC Hydro to release third party information contained in a record requested by an applicant.
100-1996 A decision by the Larkin Water Works District to refuse access to water usage records containing personal information about third parties.
99-1996 A decision by the British Columbia Securities Commission to sever certain information about third parties from records that an applicant requested.
98-1996 A request for review of the City of Vancouver's denial of a request for a fee waiver.
97-1996 A decision by Simon Fraser University to sever information from a report of a Committee of Inquiry.
96-1996 A decision by the Ministry of Social Services to refuse an applicant access to the institutional records of her deceased sister.
95-1996 Whether records relating to a contractor and subcontractor are under the control of the BC Hydro.
94-1996 A decision by the Ministry of Social Services to withhold a series of letters.
93-1996 A decision by the Office of the Public Trustee to withhold a legal opinion from an applicant.
92-1996 A refusal by BC Hydro to grant access to records on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.
91-1996 A decision by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to withhold Digital Map Data from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee.
90-1996 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.
88-1996 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.
87-1996 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.
86-1996 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.
83-1996 A Decision by the Ministry of Health to withhold from a parent a series of interviews concerning a child's daycare.
80-1996 A decision by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to withhold records relating to the Motor Vehicle Registration database.

1995

73-1995 A decision by the Ministries of Health and Finance and Corporate Relations to refuse access to computer backup tapes containing deleted e-mail.
71-1995 A decision by the Office of the Premier to refuse access to records relating to allegations of sexual harassment against a former Cabinet Minister.
69-1995 A decision by the District of Squamish to refuse access to the addresses of electors contained in a List of Registered Electors.
68-1995 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.
65-1995 A decision by the City of Nelson to refuse access by the media to records of long distance telephone calls made from its offices.
64-1995 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.
63-1995 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.
62-1995 A request by a parent for access to records of a Delta School Board meeting relating to disciplinary action against a teacher.
61-1995 A refusal by the District of North Vancouver to disclose an interim legal bill about a current court case.
58-1995 A decision by the Victoria Police Department to sever information and withhold law enforcement records from an applicant.
56-1995 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.
55-1995 The City of Vancouver's denial of the New Democrat Government Caucus's request for a fee waiver.
54-1995 A Request for access to records of the Workers Compensation Board.
53-1995 A refusal by the Office of the Public Trustee to disclose information concerning the estate of an applicant's deceased mother.
52-1995 A Request for competition records held by the Ministry of Government Services.
50-1995 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.
49-1995 A refusal by the Ministry of Social Services to disclose an adult daughter's personal information to her mother.
47-1995 A Request for internal audit report in the custody of the Ministry of Attorney General.
46-1995 A Decision by School District 68 (Nanaimo) to release records about severance settlements provided to two former employees.
44-1995 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.
43-1995 A Request for access to a letter from a third party responding to a complaint to the Town of View Royal.
42-1995 A Request for access to records held by the Labour Relations Board, consisting of two Industrial Relations Officer's reports and a draft letter.
41-1995 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.
40-1995 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.
39-1995 A Request for Access to Complaint Records held by the City of Langley.
38-1995 A Request for access to records pertaining to Flora Island held by the Ministry of Attorney-General.
37-1995 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).
36-1995 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.
35-1995 A request for records concerning an adult adoptee held by the Ministry of Social Services.
32-1995 A Request for access to complaint records of the Employment Standards Branch of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.
31-1995 A request for access to records of the Office of the Public Trustee of British Columbia.
30-1995 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.

1994

28-1994 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.
27-1994 A Request by The Province for Access to Suicide Records held by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry Responsible for Seniors.
26-1994 A Request for Access to a Record of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.
24-1994 A Request for a list of severance packages awarded to non-union employees of Shaughnessy Hospital.
23-1994 A Request for Access to Records of the Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry of The Attorney General.
22-1994 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.
21-1994 A Decision to Withhold Records of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry Responsible for Seniors.
20-1994 A Request for Access to Records of the Ministry of The Attorney-General.
19-1994 A Request for Access to Records of B.C. Transit.
18-1994 A Request for Access to Records of the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Responsible for Seniors.
17-1994 A Decision to Release Records of the Ministry of Education.
16-1994 A Request for Access to Records of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.
15-1994 A Request by the Wellington Insurance Company for Access to Records of the Insurance Corporation.
14-1994 A Request to Review a Decision of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
13-1994 A Request for Access to Records of the B.C. Police Commission.
12-1994 A Request for Access to Records of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.
11-1994 A Request for Access to Records of the Ministry of Health and Dogwood Lodge.
10-1994 A Request for Access to Records of the Ministry of Social Services.
9-1994 A Request for Access to Records of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.
8-1994 A Request for Access to Records of the Ministry of Employment and Investment and the Office of the Premier.
7-1994 A Request for Access to Records Relating to the Performance of Abortion Services for the Ministry of Health.
6-1994 A Request for a Report from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.
5-1994 A Request for a Report from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.
4-1994 A Request for Access to Psychological Records held by the B.C. Board of Parole, Ministry of The Attorney-General.
3-1994 A Request for Review by Mr. Gordon D. Frampton for Access to Survey Records held by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
2-1994 A Request for Access to Ministry of Social Services Records.
1-1994 Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations/Public Service Employees Relations Commission.