CRD Watch Homepage

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

I eventually as a result received a final response from the OIPC, which concluded that the UBCM is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA).

I’m 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

—————————————————————————————————

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.

—————————————————————————————————

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