Lack of Accountability: OIPC Case Review Officer, declined my Freedom of Information Request to the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) on the basis that UBCM is immune from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).
That UBCM is acting and allowed by the Province to act immune to FIPPA suggests that the Province has setup UBCM, which plays a critical role mediating between local governments and the province, as a rogue agency, which operates beyond transparency and accountability to the public.
“We received your complaint on November 27, 2025 regarding an information access request to UBCM under FIPPA. We understand your complaint is that the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) declined to provide the requested documents because they are not subject to FIPPA” – OIPC Case Review Officer
By Sasha Izard
Nov 30, 2025
During this fall, I’ve written a whole series of articles regarding a gross lack of transparency and accountability from the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM). This article is the 10th installment in that series.
Index of articles and other material regarding the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) – CRD Watch Homepage
—————————————————————————————————
Recap: Oct 24, 2025 I submitted a Freedom of Information request for all documents showing the sponsorship and other arrangements for media personality George Stroumboulopoulos to be keynote speaker at UBCM in 2024, and to include in the FOI response, the documents showing the payments from UBCM to George Stromboulopoulos and the amounts that were included in the payments from UBCM to him.
3 days later, I was subsequently advised through email by a UBCM Office Administrator:
“Please be advised that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) legislation does not cover UBCM. As such, UBCM neither processes requests under the legislation regarding its own operations nor processes FOI requests directed toward those bodies covered by the legislation, such as the provincial government.
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96165_02#section5
“
The same day, I wrote to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC):
Hello Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia,
I am hereby reporting UBCM for refusing a Freedom of Information request.
The FOI request that I made, and UBCM’s refusal to grant it has been forwarded to your office in this email.
Thank you
Sasha Izard
The OIPC did not respond.
On Nov 27, 2025 I wrote again to the OIPC:
Update:
It is over 30 days since I made this FOI request to UBCM, and UBCM has still not responded to this FOI request. I am reporting UBCM to you the OIPC, that they have refused this FOI request.
Thank you,
Sasha Izard
—————————————————————————————————
The following day on Nov 28, 2025 I received a response from an OIPC Case Review Officer (See Appendix 1.).
The response contained a barrage of verbiage about PIPA, something I had not asked anything about and was irrelevant, as it concerns one’s own personal information, which was not what I was requesting. The type of information that I was requesting, falls under FIPPA or FOIPPA, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Amongst the verbiage the Case Review Officer wrote:
“We received your complaint on November 27, 2025 regarding an information access request to UBCM under FIPPA. We understand your complaint is that the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) declined to provide the requested documents because they are not subject to FIPPA” – OIPC Case Review Officer
The Case Review Officer concluded:
I have determined that your complaint should be declined because the OIPC agrees that the organization is subject to PIPA and therefore the records fall outside of the scope of the Personal Information Protection Act.
I have closed this file and will take no further action.
As per the OIPC Policy on declining to investigate, if you are of the view that it does not apply to this
issue or the decision to discontinue was an error or a breach of natural justice or administrative fairness, then you have 15 days to apply for a reconsideration by emailing info@oipc.bc.ca.
—————————————————————————————————
To be clear, the government bureaucrat could have written: UBCM is not subject to FIPAA, and as such I have declined your complaint that UBCM did not respond to your Freedom of Information Request.
However, government bureaucrats are not known for clarity. and FOI departments as I have documented extensively on CRD Watch, seem to specialize in muddying the water, when inconvenient truths arise from FOI requests, in ways that often resemble a standardized textbook of such techniques before them.
From experience, I expect the latter and not the former. Read between the lines though, and the following in other words (for succinct clarity), is exactly what the bureaucrat was informing me of in their letter: UBCM is not subject to FIPAA, and as such, my complaint that UBCM did not respond to my Freedom of Information Request, was declined.
—————————————————————————————————
On Nov 30, 2025 I sent the following appeal for reconsideration of the file to the OIPC:
Subject: ATTN: Manager of Case Review – Re: INV-P-25-02236
Hello,
OIPC Manager of Case Review,
I am officially submitting a request for reconsideration of my complaint which was declined by the OIPC Case Review Officer:
INV-P-25-02236
I have forwarded that decision in this email.
The reason I am submitting a request for reconsideration of this file is that I consider that the decision to decline the complaint, was an error.
This is why I consider that decision to have been in error:
As stated in Part 1 of FOIPPA:
“The purposes of this Act are to make public bodies more accountable to the public and to protect personal privacy by
(a)giving the public a right of access to records”
UBCM looks like a public body. It acts like a public body, and it is a public body. It is a corporation created by the Province (UBCM Act) to facilitate local governments to interact together and engage with the Provincial Government on governmental issues.
UBCM receives funding from the province (public funds) and facilitates provincial grants to local governments, and therefore, should be both transparent and accountable to the public (the ultimate source of such funds), in a democracy.
Decisions are made at UBCM by elected local government officials in the form of resolutions, which while are not technically binding, many of them do have an effect on the governance of the Province, which in turn impacts both municipal and regional governance.
Ergo, UBCM is a public body, regardless of whether or not it is included in the list of public bodies in Schedule 2 of FIPPA.
Therefore, as is the stated purpose of the Act “to make public bodies more accountable to the public”, by “(a)giving the public a right of access to records” – UBCM is subject to FIPPA, and to requirements for the public release of records according to it. As a result, my Freedom of Information request to UBCM should be completed and the public body (UBCM)’s response provided to me, according to the legislation.
Thank you,
Sasha Izard
References:
Union of British Columbia Municipalities Act
Table of Contents – Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Excerpted relevant sections from Part 1 of the Act:
Part 1 — Introductory Provisions
Definitions
1 Schedule 1 contains definitions of terms used in this Act.
Purposes of this Act
2 (1)The purposes of this Act are to make public bodies more accountable to the public and to protect personal privacy by
(a)giving the public a right of access to records,
(b)giving individuals a right of access to, and a right to request correction of, personal information about themselves,
(c)specifying limited exceptions to the right of access,
(d)preventing the unauthorized collection, use or disclosure of personal information by public bodies, and
(e)providing for an independent review of decisions made under this Act.
(2)This Act does not replace other procedures for access to information or limit in any way access to information that is not personal information and is available to the public.
Application
3 (1)Subject to subsections (3) to (5), this Act applies to all records in the custody or under the control of a public body, including court administration records.
(a)to all employees, officers and directors of a public body, and
(b)in the case of an employee that is a service provider, to all employees and associates of the service provider.
(3)This Act does not apply to the following:
(i)a judge of the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court or Provincial Court,
(ii)an associate judge of the Supreme Court, or
(c)a judicial administration record;
(d)a record relating to support services provided to a judge of a court referred to in paragraph (b) (i);
(e)a personal note, communication or draft decision of a person who is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity;
(f)a record that is created by or for, or is in the custody or under the control of, an officer of the Legislature and that relates to the exercise of functions under an Act;
(g)a record that was created by or for the auditor general under the Auditor General for Local Government Act and that relates to the exercise of functions under that Act;
(h)a record of a question or answer to be used on an examination or test;
(i)a record containing teaching or research materials of
(i)a faculty member, as defined in the College and Institute Act and the University Act, of a post-secondary educational body,
(ii)a teaching assistant or research assistant employed at a post-secondary educational body, or
(iii)another person teaching or carrying out research at a post-secondary educational body;
(j)a record placed in the archives of a public body, or the digital archives or museum archives of government, by or for a person or agency other than a public body;
(k)a record relating to a prosecution if not all proceedings in respect of the prosecution have been completed;
(l)a record of a service provider that is not related to the provision of services for a public body.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Schedule 1)
Schedule 1 includes the following definition of “public body”:
“public body” means
(a)a ministry of the government of British Columbia, including, for certainty, the Office of the Premier,
(b)an agency, board, commission, corporation, office or other body designated in, or added by regulation to, Schedule 2, or
but does not include
(d)the office of a person who is a member or officer of the Legislative Assembly, or
(e)the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court or Provincial Court;
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Schedule 2)
—————————————————————————————————
Conclusion: The Provincial Government would have the public believe that it has Freedom of Information, but when it comes to the governmental bodies that act as intercessors between levels of government from the Province downward, (UBCM and the Municipal Finance Authority), well then Omission of Information, rather than Freedom of Information, is not only perfectly acceptable, but appears enshrined into policy.
The Province will not admit that openly however, therefore it takes certain testing to confirm that, according to scientific method. So far the tests have confirmed this repeatedly.
When I wrote to the Ministry responsible for Freedom of Information they would not provide a relevant answer to my question on this subject. (See Appendix 2)
At the end of the day, it’s up to the public to decide if this is acceptable or not. If clarity, transparency, and accountability are needed, then we need a different government with different bureaucrats and a textbook and detailed training of how to be straightforward with the public.
—————————————————————————————————
Appendix 1: Nov 28, 2025 Letter from OIPC Case Review Officer declining my complaint that UBCM has refused to respond to my Freedom of Information request.
—————————————————————————————————
Appendix 2: My communications with the Ministry of Citizens Services on the subject of whether or not UBCM and the Municipal Finance Authority are subject to FOIPPA
On Oct 24, 2025 – I wrote to the Ministry of Citizens Services at their FOI Operations email: Foi.requests@gov.bc.ca
Hello Ministry of Citizen’s Services Information Access Operations,
I am writing to ask you whether or not the Union of BC Municipalities, and the Municipal Finance Authority are subject to BC’s Freedom of Information legislation (FOIPPA).
You appear to be the correct branch of government to answer this question.
Thank you,
Sasha Izard
—————————————————————————————————
Link with information indicating to me that you are the correct branch of government to answer this question:
Contacts – Province of British Columbia
—————————————————————————————————
On Oct 27, 2025 I received a response:
Hello Sasha,
Both of these would process their own requests outside of our FOI process. You will need to contact them directly.
Thank you,
—————————————————————————————————
The following day on Oct 28, 2025 I responded:
Hello Ministry of Citizen’s Services Information Access Operations,
You didn’t answer my question.
I wrote:
I am writing to ask you whether or not the Union of BC Municipalities, and the Municipal Finance Authority are subject to BC’s Freedom of Information legislation (FOIPPA).
Please answer with a yes, or a no. Are these bodies subject to FOIPPA or not?
Thank you again,
Sasha
—————————————————————————————————
On Nov 8, 2025 I wrote again:
Hello Ministry of Citizens Services,
Are you going to answer the question?
Thank you again,
Sasha
—————————————————————————————————
The Ministry never replied.
—————————————————————————————————
See also: Index of articles and other material regarding the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) – CRD Watch Homepage
CRD Watch Homepage 
Leave a comment