Exam About Bc Freedom of Information

¶ … FOIPP Act supersedes all other acts unless the other act expressly provides that it or a provision of it applies despite the Act. Under Section 57, the burden of proof lies with the public body to demonstrate that they can or must block access to the information requested. If the clerk at the public body cannot find the documentation proving his claims of legislative override, then the records must be released.

In this case, there is nothing to respond to -- a generic claim that "there is a policy" does not meet the burden of proof requirements under Section 57. The clerk will be informed that they do not have a choice but to obey the ruling. If the public body wishes to address the matter further, it is the responsibility of the head of the public body, not the clerk, to make the claim, and the head still must provide the evidence. "Policy" is not good enough -- there would need to be a specific legislative override, or evidence provided that would demonstrate that releasing the information would qualify for one of the exceptions listed in Division 2.

36. Section 43 is intended for requests are the routine and burdensome. The section exists to prevent abuse of the system under a scenario that would see requests filed on a systematic basis, in a manner that burdens the client ministry. A case needs to be built for Section 43, and there are several things a client ministry can do to build the case. The ministry would want to show that they have dealt with the applicant with restraint in the past, but that the applicant's requested are either malicious in nature, or have interefered with the ability of the ministry to do its job. It can also be argued that the applicant is not making the requests legitimately -- as in they have no reasonable purpose for the request (are not seeking to correct the record, or has no basis in fact), or also evidence that the applicant has generated requests under multiple names.

37. Section 7 relates to this situation but does not discuss it explicitly. The FOIPP staff have up to 30 days to respond to a request, and this begins the day that the request is made. This is the time frame that is written into the law, and the applicant cannot change that time frame. It is recommended that the applicant file their request on November 30th in order to meet their time frame. Applicant request is not one of the conditions under which a timeframe can be extended under Section 10.

38. There are several considerations that will be taken with this request. First, it should be considered if this request falls under Section 43. If it does not, there are still several elements within his request that are subject to exception. First, any records that are cabinet or public body confidences must be excluded. Under Section 14, legal advice may be excluded. Under Section 15, anything detrimental law enforcement can be excluded. Under 15a), this could included everything that the applicant has requested, because turning over those records could "harm a law enforcement matter." "

The other aspect to this is personal privacy. We do not actually know if the applicant is Tom Spanks. This is as per Section 32 (B), wherein the person who is the subject of the information must consent to this release. In the unlikely event that the request for the communications are granted - they are likely to be rejected under Section 15 -- the identity of the applicant must be verified to ensure adequate privacy protections.

1. 39.

Prepare the following file notes for severing by highlighting the items that would be withheld and indicate (typing )which section of the legislation applies. There is a comment box at the end of the notes if you wish to make any brief comments.

From the Desk of Ellen Ells

June 13, 2009

Zachary,

I am leaving you this note as I will be out of the office this afternoon. I would like you to look into this issue and then document the result for the file. Could you please call September Frost at the Duncan field office and gather more information on their issue that they left on my voice mail yesterday afternoon. On their voice mail to me they said:

On Thursday, June 7th I received a phone call from TallaTowsend whose property is only a few miles from First Nation land. She stated that she was in her backyard when her neighbor was planting some trees last week in his backyard and found some pottery type materials and other items that she doesn't know how to explain. Talla advised that her neighbor told her that he is not going to call it in, and is going to sell the items on Ebay. She wants us to go to the neighbor and speak with him, but not to tell him that she is the one who called. She would like our office's advice.

Could you call September and suggest she gather more information.

Thanks Ellen

June 14th