The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC), has concluded that the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Another major government transparency gap has been exposed.
By Sasha Izard
Jan 13, 2026
Several months ago, I revealed how the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in British Columbia contradicted itself as to whether or not the Union of BC Municipalities is subject to the Freedom of Information legislation known as FOIPPA or FIPPA (The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act).
See:
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) does not know if public bodies, the UBCM, and the Municipal Finance Authority, fall under Freedom of Information Legislation. – CRD Watch Homepage
No Transparency: The Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) denies that it is subject to Freedom of Information legislation. – CRD Watch Homepage
I didn’t leave the issue vaguely hanging in the wind, I pressed the OIPC to not only take a stance, but to come to a conclusion on the subject – by launching an official complaint to the OIPC that the UBCM had not responded to a Freedom of Information request.
See: 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). – CRD Watch Homepage
Wishing to leave nothing vague on the subject from the OIPC, I continued to press for the issue to be concluded, by making a clear case that the Union of BC Municipalities is a public body and should thus be subject to Freedom of Information legislation.
See: Letter of reconsideration to the OIPC in regard to the governmental stance that UBCM is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: – CRD Watch Homepage
See also Appendix 2 at the end of this article, for the final case that I made to the OIPC that UBCM is a public body and is thus subject to FOIPPA.
I received a final response to that case from the OIPC, which concluded that the UBCM is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA).
I am glad that the OIPC finally came to a definitive conclusion from their end. Would it stand up in court? I’d love to see the BC Supreme Court make a definitive conclusion on this.
Right now the responsibility for this situation stands firmly on the Provincial Government of British Columbia, which intentionally crafted legislation, which the OIPC has interpreted as not making the Union of BC Municipalities subject to the Freedom of Information requirements of FOIPPA.
Why did the Provincial Government craft the legislation to do that? I think the answer is obvious. The Provincial Government does not want and does not allow transparency and accountability before the public in regard to the Union of BC Municipalities, despite that it is a public entity – a clear contradiction of the stated purpose of the Freedom of Information and the Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA/FIPPA), which is 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”.
The public however, has no right of access to the freedom of information requirements provided to other public bodies under the Act, as per the interpretation of the Act by the OIPC.
This is one of numerous crafted double standards/contradictions in the legislation of the Provincial Government of British Columbia, which continues to keep them in place despite being fully aware of them.
————————————————————————————————–
The OIPC’s conclusion:
On Jan 7, 2025 – the OIPC wrote to me their final ruling in regard to INV-P-25-02236, in which it concluded that the UBCM is not subject to FIPPA, and thus not subject to its Freedom of Information requirements.
The following is the text of their letter, which was sent in PDF form. A screenshot of the letter can be viewed in the appendix at the end of this article.
Dear Sasha Izard:
Re: Reconsideration OIPC File INV-P-25-02236
I write in response to your November 30, 2025, request that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC), reconsider the decision in file INV-P-25-02236. In that file, the Case Review Officer declined your request for review because the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) gives you a right to request only your own personal information from an organization. Your request to the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) was for general records.
While there is no statutory obligation under PIPA to reconsider a decision about whether a request for review has been properly declined, it is OIPC policy to review requests such as yours and to reconsider a decision when there are reasonable grounds to do so.
A decision may be reconsidered under the following circumstances:
1) When it is necessary to correct a clerical error, an accidental error or an omission by the case
review officer;
2) When the finding has resulted from a breach of natural justice or administrative fairness;
3) When relevant issues were not addressed or fully resolved; or
4) Where new evidence or facts are brought forward that were not previously available to the
individual seeking the reconsideration.
The Commissioner has assigned me to review your request and determine whether there are reasonable grounds to reconsider the Case Review Officer’s decision.
On December 22, 2025, I gave you a deadline of January 2, 2026, to confirm the grounds for reconsideration and to provide me with any additional information you wished for me to consider.
You replied to me on December 28, 2025.
In your submissions, you confirmed that in your view the file should be reconsidered under criteria number 1. You provided me with a copy of the definition of “public body” from Schedule 1 of FIPPA and you argued that the UBCM is a public body and not an organization. You stated: “I am saying that it falls under (b) in that UBCM is a “corporation”, which is a public corporation.
It may also be considered (c) a local public body, in a sense similar to how regional governments are federations of municipalities. UBCM’s membership represents local governments, and like local and regional governments, it is under Provincial legislation.”
I appreciate that you may believe UBCM is a corporation and as such meets the definition of the public body. However, the full subsection b of the public body definition reads as follows:
(b)an agency, board, commission, corporation, office or other body designated in, or
added by regulation to, Schedule 2, or
UBCM is not a designated body and was never added by regulation to Schedule 2 of FIPPA.
Hence, the decision of the case review was not an error.
I have reviewed the material in this file and considered the information you supplied.
In regard to this OIPC file, you have not demonstrated that any of the grounds for reconsideration apply.
I understand that you disagree with the Case Review Officers’ decision in file INV-P-25-02236; that is your right. However, this is not grounds for reconsideration.
File INV-P-25-02236 remains
closed and the OIPC considers this matter concluded.
Sincerely,
Ania Kokias
Director of Case Review
—————————————————————————————————
On Jan 12, 2026 – I wrote in response to the OIPC,
Hello Ania,
Thank you for your response.
I am glad that the OIPC has finally taken a firm and conclusive stance on this issue. The OIPC has concluded that the Union of BC Municipalities is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA).
This is an important and critical step in revealing to the public, that there is a major transparency gap in the FOIPPA legislation crafted by the Provincial Government, that allows the Union of BC Municipalities to not be subject to the transparency and accountability provided to other public bodies by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a clear contradiction of the Act’s stated purpose to provide transparency in regard to public bodies.
—————————————————————————————————
On a different note, you appear to have made an error in your letter of response to my reconsideration request regarding this issue, which I ask you to clarify.
In the letter you wrote regarding myself: “you argued that the UBCM is a public body and not an organization.”
I did not argue that the UBCM is not an organization as you put it. I argued that the UBCM is not a private organization.
I ask in the interest of accuracy from the OIPC, that you clarify for the record, that this is the case, based on the content of my actual letters for reconsideration of this issue.
Thank you,
Sasha Izard
—————————————————————————————————
On Jan 22, 2025
Ania wrote back:
Hi Sasha,
As requested, here is an amended letter. I added “private” in front of the organization.
Regards,
—————————————————————————————————
Appendix: The OIPC’s final ruling on INV-P-25-02236, in which it concluded that the UBCM is not subject to FIPPA, and thus not subject to its Freedom of Information requirements.
Note to the above: I highlighted FIPPA (which also goes by FOIPPA), so as to focus on the OIPC’s conclusions in regard to it not being applicable to the UBCM.
From the beginning to the end, the OIPC’s reference to and focus on PIPA was a red herring, a distraction from the actual issue that I had enquired about, which was FIPPA/FOIPPA and whether or not its Freedom of Information requirements applied to the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM). Such distractions/obfuscations from the actual subject matter, is typical and to be expected of how the government bureaucracy operates, as has been revealed time and again, in dozens of other articles.
—————————————————————————————————
Appendix 2: The final case that I made to the OIPC that the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) is a public body and is thus subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA).
On Nov 30, 2025 I submitted an official request for reconsideration of my complaint which was declined by the OIPC Case Review Officer in regard to the governmental stance that UBCM is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: OIPC File #INV-P-25-02236
You can read that letter here:
Letter of reconsideration to the OIPC in regard to the governmental stance that UBCM is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: – CRD Watch Homepage
On Dec 22, 2025 I received a response from the OIPC’s Director of Case Review Ania Kokias:
Dear Sasha,
I was forwarded your email for response. As you know, the case review officer declined to investigate your complaint under the OIPC Policy, Procedures and Criteria for Declining to Investigate.
While there is no statutory obligation under PIPA to reconsider the outcome of a complaint, it is OIPC policy to review such requests and to re-open an investigation when there are reasonable grounds to do so.
Please note that a reconsideration is not an appeal of the finding made by the Case Review Officer. Rather, it involves a potential re-opening of the investigation. An investigation may be re-opened under the following circumstances:
1. When it is necessary to correct a clerical error, an accidental error or an omission by the case review officer;
2. When the finding has resulted from a breach of natural justice or administrative fairness;
3. When relevant issues were not addressed or fully resolved; or
4. Where new evidence or facts are brought forward that were not previously available to the individual seeking the reconsideration.
I understand you believe the file should be open under criteria number 1. If that is correct, could you please elaborate further? You included a definition of “public body” in your email below. Are you saying that UBCM falls under a, b or c of that definition? If it is under c – please note the Schedule 1 of FIPPA has a separate definition of what constitutes a “local public body”.
If you would like to add anything to your November 30, 2025 email, please do so by Friday, January 2, 2026. If I don’t hear back from you by January 2, 2026, I will base my decision on your November 30, 2025 email to this office.
Should you require more time, please let me know as soon as possible.
Regards,
Ania Kokias
—————————————————————————————————
On Dec 28, 2025 I replied to the OIPC with my final case that the UBCM is a public body and is thus subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA):
Hello,
Thank you for reaching out to me for clarification.
I also think that section 3 applies: “When relevant issues were not addressed or fully resolved”, principally because the OIPC officer looked at the issue through the lens of PIPA, instead of FOIPPA, when my complaint was in regard to UBCM not complying with FOIPPA, something that deserves addressing in regard to that legislation specifically.
“I understand you believe the file should be open under criteria number 1. If that is correct, could you please elaborate further?”
Yes. I already stated my reasons for that in my last email.
I will elaborate further as asked, in relation to what the OIPC officer wrote previously:
“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.”
PIPA applies to private organizations:
pipa-guide.pdf
As I mentioned previously, UBCM is not a private organization, it is a Public Body which is under Provincial Legislation (the UBCM Act), therefore it is subject to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA).
“You included a definition of “public body” in your email below. Are you saying that UBCM falls under a, b or c of that definition? If it is under c – please note the Schedule 1 of FIPPA has a separate definition of what constitutes a “local public body”.
Thank you for asking the question. I have added that section of FOIPPA again as an appendix to this email, for clarity.
I am saying that it falls under (b) in that UBCM is a “corporation”, which is a public corporation.
It may also be considered (c) a local public body, in a sense similar to how regional governments are federations of municipalities. UBCM’s membership represents local governments, and like local and regional governments, it is under Provincial legislation.
Once again, I point to the Purposes of the Act (FOIPPA):
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,
As UBCM is a public body, for all of the reasons I have previously stated e.g. that it is under the Provincial Legislation of the UBCM Act, and through the common sense lens of: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck – UBCM is a public body. Therefore, if the Purposes of the Act are to be fulfilled through making the public body accountable, the public should be given a right of access to the records of UBCM through FOIPPA.
The Purposes of the Act do not include making public bodies like UBCM unaccountable and untransparent, by denying the public access to their records (including those that are not personal in nature); rather, not making public bodies like UBCM transparent and accountable under FOIPPA, would run contrary to the stated Purposes of the Act, and would negate the stated Purposes of the Act, thus being a contradiction in legislation.
Under the Purposes of the Act is also written: ” (c)specifying limited exceptions to the right of access,”.
The Act does not specify that UBCM is an exception to the right of access.
Once again, I ask that the OIPC investigate.
Thank you,
Sasha Izard
Appendix: Excerpts from FOIPPA.
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
Schedule 1 includes the following definition of “local public body”:
“local public body” means
(d)a governing body of a profession or occupation, if the governing body is designated in, or added by regulation to, Schedule 3;
Appendix 3: The OIPC’s amended letter:
Appendix 4: Letter to Minister Boyle in regard to UBCM not being subject to FOIPPA
On Feb 21, 2026 – I sent the following letter:
Hello Minister Boyle,
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC), has concluded that the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
As Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs, presumably this is your responsibility. If it is not, please let me know who is responsible for this.
Thank you,
Sasha Izard
—————————————————————————————————
See also:
BC MLAs that are not Ministers, are not subject to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) requirements. – CRD Watch Homepage
Index of articles and other material regarding the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) – CRD Watch Homepage
Index of articles regarding Law and Bylaw – CRD Watch Homepage
CRD Watch Homepage 
Leave a comment