The City of Vancouver has asked B.C. Supreme Court to quash an information commissioner’s order that it disclose plans for new rental housing sought in a freedom of information request.
The B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner’s Office made the order June 14 in response to a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The city had withheld information in its response to the person requesting the information. It cited harm to financial or economic interests and harm to third-party business interests to withhold information from the applicant.
However, adjudicator Rene Kimmett determined the city was not authorized under the act to withhold the information in dispute. The city was ordered to give the applicant the information.
As such, the city filed a July 12 petition with the court to have Kimmett’s order quashed. That petition said Kimmett’s legal and factual reasoning and conclusions were unreasonable and should be set aside.
“The information at issue in the order directly impacts the city’s ability to control its own policy processes and the impacts of those processes in engaging in this work,” the petition said.
“Specifically, the city relies on third-party financial modelling to be associated with specific sites and owners,” it said. “The city provided evidence that disclosure of this information could reasonably be expected to harm property owners and frustrate city objectives.”
Further, the city said, a third party retained to provide the modelling has said it would be unwilling to continue to disclose such information to the city if it could not protect such data from public disclosure.
The petition said without that information, the city would have to change its financial modelling practices.
The commissioner's office confirmed it has received the petition.
The request
The person asking for the information did so July 5, 2021. They sought information on a wide range of housing data covering November 2019 to July 15, 2021.
The city provided some records Aug. 27, 2021 but withheld others, the petition said. Eighteen days later, the applicant sought a commissioner’s office review. It first went to an inquiry which didn’t resolve the situation. It then moved to the review, ultimately resulting in Kimmett’s order.
