FFICE OF THE

NFORMATION

RIVACY

OMMISSIONER

for British Columbia

Protecting privacy. Promoting transparency.

Mail: PO Box 9038, Stn Prov Govt, Victoria BC V8W 9A4Location: 4th Floor, 947 Fort Street, Victoria BCT. 250 387 5629 F. 250 387 1696Toll free through

Enquiry BC

800 663 7867 or 604 660 2421 (Vancouver)W. www.oipc.bc.ca

May 31, 2011Bob Mackin18 - 1073 Lynn Valley RoadNORTH VANCOUVER BC V7J 1Z6Dear Bob Mackin:

Re: Request for Review - Scope; City of Vancouver File ; OIPC File F11-45456

I am the investigator assigned to review your request that our office examine the decision of theCity of Vancouver ("City") to consider the records that you requested are out of the scope of theFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ("FIPPA") under s. 3(1)(g) of FIPPA.On March 20, 2011, you sent two emails to the City requesting some Board of Director minutesand financial reports of VANOC ("Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic andParalypic Winter Games") from "the Vancouver 2010 submitted materials collection."On March 23, 2011, the City responded advising you that it was their position that the requestedrecords listed in the VANOC / COC ("Canadian Olympic Committee") inventory and weretherefore part of materials placed in the City of Vancouver Archives by an agency other than apublic body. In its opinion, under s. 3(1)(g), FIPPA does not apply to such records.

(1) This Act applies to all records in the custody or under the control of a public body,including court administration records, but does not apply to the following:



(g) material placed in the archives of a public body by or for a person or agency other than a public body



On April 21, 2011, you wrote to our office requesting a review of the above decision providing uswith reasons that you disagreed with the City's decision.I have carefully reviewed the legislation as well as your response to the decision. It is my viewthat the records that you requested are not covered by FIPPA. I provide you with my reasoningbelow.The first element which must be met is that the requested records consists of material placed inthe archives of a public body. The Archival Materials Agreement between the City and VANOC

Page

2 of 3

and the COC includes the records which you requested and you have not raised any argumentthat is contrary. So I believe that the first part of the test has been met.The second element is that the individual or organization who places the material in the archivesmust not be a public body. Your argument is that VANOC is a public body and therefore cannotrely on s. 3(1)(g) of FIPPA. Under Schedule 1 FIPPA, the definition of "public body" is providedwhich I have inserted below.

public body"

means(a) a ministry of the government of British Columbia,(b) an agency, board, commission, corporation, office or other body designatedin, or added by regulation to, Schedule 2, or (c) a local public body



local public body"

means(a) a local government body,(b) a health care body,(b.1) a social services body,(c) an educational body, or (d) a governing body of a profession or occupation, if the governing body isdesignated in, or added by regulation to, Schedule 3;For VANOC to be a public body, it must meet one of the definitions provided above. VANOCclearly does not meet the definition under (a) as it is not a ministry. I have reviewed Schedule 2of FIPPA and VANOC has not been designated in, or added by regulation to, Schedule 2. Theremaining possibility is that VANOC is a local public body. However VANOC does not matchany of the categories provided in the definition of local public body. In my opinion, VANOCcannot be considered a public body under FIPPA and as such the records meet the test under s. 3(1)(g) of FIPPA.In reaching this conclusion, I have also reviewed your arguments in the letter of April 21, 2011to our office. In the letter you refer to the decision of Madame Justice Fenlon in the matter of Sagen et al vs. VANOC. You draw attention to the fact that Madame Justice Fenlon decidedthat since VANOC was carrying out a government activity, it must be covered by the Charter.You then stated that it is reasonable for the Freedom of the Press section of the Charter toapply. I cannot see how this section applies to the matter that I am reviewing. Freedom of the