The BC Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) has determined the Town of Gibsons was authorized to publicly disclose a resident’s name and address enclosed in a 2022 petition.
Adjudicator Alexander Corley made the judgment June 24, and the written decision was released last week.
The complaint to OPIC centered on a petition the complainant and their spouse drafted in early 2022 requesting the town reopen two closed roads, the judgment said.
After going door-to-door to compile signatures from neighbours – the petition asking for full names, residential addresses and signatures – the complainant submitted the petition and cover letter to council. The cover letter included the complainant’s full name, address and signature. The complainant’s spouse asked the couple be allowed to present to council, and it was agreed they could present at a March committee of the whole meeting. When the agenda for that meeting was posted, the petition and cover letter were included and the complainant’s name, address and signature were not redacted.
The complainant argued the town posted this information without authorization, therefore violating the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).
Corley found that while the information in this context could be considered “personal information,” he found that the town’s corporate officer was authorized to release this information and that it was “consistent with the agenda’s purpose of providing the public with sufficient information to decide whether they had an interest in the matters slated for consideration by council.”
“I find that the complainant’s identity as an organizer and signer of the petition, and therefore their name, would have been relevant to a resident of the town who was considering whether they had an interest in the petition at the time it was set to be considered by council,” said Corley. “I make the same finding regarding the complainant’s address, which identifies the complainant as a resident of the area affected by the road closures and would have provided the public with additional context regarding the complainant’s potential motivations for organizing the petition and bringing it to council’s attention.”
Corley also found that as the complainant was one of the first to sign the petition and it would have been visible to anyone later approached to sign the petition, they did not intend their signature to remain confidential.
