Whereas public bodies are responsible for the management and protection of personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; And whereas under this Act, the requirements to meet the threshold to disregard a request because it is frivolous or vexatious or would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body because the request is excessively broad or is repetitive or systematic is unconscionably high and hard to obtain; And whereas public bodies can be subjected to harassment, defamation, accusations and abuse of staff time with little to no protection and a legal requirement to respond to malicious requests: Therefore be it resolved that UBCM asks that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia review its thresholds for disregarding requests submitted under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia The resolution says that the threshold for authorizing public bodies to disregard requests is unconscionably high and hard to obtain, and that public bodies can be required to respond to malicious requests. As I said publicly soon after the resolution passed, no public servant should have to deal with harassment of any kind, and where there is evidence of it, that would be grounds for this office to authorize public bodies to disregard such requests. Under s. 43, a public body can ask for permission to disregard a request made under ss. 5 or 29 of FIPPA. The section then sets out several circumstances that could lead to such a decision. Those circumstances were expanded in the recent round of FIPPA amendments. This means that there are now more circumstances that public bodies can point to when making an application under s. 43. Any application by a public body to my office to disregard an access request will, of course, be carefully considered because it effectively curtails or eliminates an individuals statutory rights. But, as I have said, those rights also need to be exercised in good faith, as their abuse detrimentally impacts the rights of others and harms the public interest. Because it is the public body asserting the right to disregard an access application, the onus will be on them to demonstrate this with evidence. Adjudicators will assess all of the evidence presented and decide whether the public body has established that one or more of the circumstances in s. 43 applies. If a public body is not satisfied with that decision, they can seek a judicial review of the matter. I very much appreciate the opportunity to respond to this resolution and think it would beneficial for our offices to maintain an ongoing dialogue about issues arising from the application of FIPPA to local government.