BCCLA Written Submissions re JR (00932894-3xB33C8)

Put another way, it would be inconsistent with the purpose of FIPPA to require the OIPC to take on a “limited role” in reviewing a legal counsel affidavit put forward in an inquiry without any consideration to the content and context of the evidence: It would be entirely antithetical to the statutory scheme and its overarching purposes to require the Commissioner to defer to the decisions of publi. [...] The Delegate then went on to conduct a thorough review of the evidence before reaching the conclusion that there were gaps in the evidence significant enough to reject the Ministry’s position that it is required to refuse to disclose the withheld information on the basis of s. [...] Specifically, the Delegate noted the following: (a) The development of the draft budget paper was only a first step towards the Ministry advancing a Treasury Board submission to seek additional funding required to implement the CSA.42 (b) The Ministry provided inconsistent information regarding when or how the Treasury Board considered the totality of information it was provided including the Word. [...] The evidence at most supports a conclusion that the withheld information went to Treasury Board staff.47 (g) The Ministry’s evidence fails to support the conclusion that disclosure of the withheld information could reveal or permit accurate inferences about the body of information the Treasury Board “would consider in the case of submissions not yet presented” in regarding operationalizing the CSA. [...] The BCCLA agrees with the Ministry that if the Court finds that the Delegate’s application of section 12 of FIPPA was unreasonable, the appropriate remedy {23011-001/00932894.3} - 16 - would be to remit the matter back to the Commissioner for a rehearing on that issue, including consideration of section 12(2)(c).