FIPA Bulletin – June 2013

In this issue:

  • BC Election: It’s time to double down on info rights
  • BC Election Act causes confusion, chills free speech — again
  • Major data security issues bedevil the Federal Government
  • A National ID Card by Stealth?
  • Fighting for a fair deal: FIPA continues to oppose Trans-Pacific Partnership
  • FIPA is hiring! Join the team
  • Access in the Academy: FIPA to launch new ATI/FOI resource for researchers

Download the bulletin (pdf).

FIPA Bulletin – December 2012

In this issue:

  • Big Wins, New Challenges: 2012 in Transparency
  • A new year means new ways to support FIPA
  • Privacy advocates raise red flags over C-12 surveillance measures
  • New parliamentary study tackles big data, social media, and privacy
  • Information Commissioner looks to overhaul Access to Information Act
  • BC Commish tries to limit license plate surveillance system
  • FIPA joins coalition against secretive trade deal
  • Upcoming event: Protecting Consitituent Privacy – Where to Start?

Download the bulletin.

Submission to the OIPC (BC) – Request for an Investigation into Disregard of Section 25 of FIPPA by Government Bodies – 30 May 2012

The University of Victoria Environmental Law Clinic
,on behalf of BC FIPA, has a submission to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to request an investigation into the disregard of section 25 of the BC Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by public bodies.

BC FIPA is concerned that there is an ongoing system-wide failure of FIPPA-regulated bodies to comply with section 25 of the Act. This provision creates a positive obligation for public bodies to act without delay to disclose to the public or affected groups information:

  • about a risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the
    public or a group of people, or
  • the disclosure of which is, for any other reason, clearly in the public interest.

Unfortunately, many public bodies appear to be unaware of or ignoring these obligations.

This submission outlines six case studies where public bodies were in possession of information about a threat to the environment, public health or safety — or information the disclosure of which was otherwise clearly in the public interest, but either did not disclose the information or disclosed it in a manner inadequate to the purpose of informing the general public or affected group(s).

Theses cases suggest a trend of non-compliance with s. 25 that requires further investigation by the Commissioner.

Download the full submission (pdf).

//
Law Student Darryl Wightman and Articled Students Emma Hume, Ethan Krindle and Carmen Gustafson

Supervised by Calvin Sandborn, ELC Legal Director

May 30, 2012