OIPCBC Update
Ron Bolin: April 23, 2015
The schedule for the Adjudication process has again been set back by the City in the notifications received from the OIPCBC yesterday. For the record I include both the notifications received and the responses to them which were sent earlier today. I cannot help but wonder how I, as an individual, am to respond to an organization with a nearly $200,000,000 budget, with a highly paid Staff of hundreds and a large legal firm behind them. Graciously, I guess. With dignity, I hope.
______________________________________________
Dear Ms. Hamilton:
Please advise as to the significance of the statements below for me and for the action under examination.
What, if any, in camera material will be provided to me, and what will be my responsibility in dealing with it?
Will I be provided with the review undertaken by Adjudicator Ross Alexander?
Thanks for your prompt response.
Ron Bolin
Nanaimo
___________
To the Parties,
The public body has provided material that it proposed should be accepted on an in camera basis on File F14-58563. Adjudicator Ross Alexander has reviewed that material and accompanying reasons and approved that it is properly received in camera.
The public body’s initial submission will contain some in camera material.
If the applicant has any questions regarding this process, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
| Cindy Hamilton, Registrar of Inquiries Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C. 4th Floor, 947 Fort Street, Victoria BC V8V 3K3 tel. 250-356-7953 | fax 250-387-1696 Follow us on Twitter | chamilton@oipc.bc.ca |
______________________________________________
Dear Ms. Hamilton:
Please be advised that I do request an extension of time to respond to the City of Nanaimo’s Initial Submission. I am, however, unclear whether the extra days offered to respond will be limited to the present extension granted to the City or will also encompass the extension previously granted to them as well.
Sincerely,
Ron Bolin
Nanaimo
________________
Dear Mr. Bolin,
I am writing to let you know that I have granted an extension of time to receive the City of Nanaimo’s Initial Submission on the above noted file. I have given them until Thursday, April 30, 2015 to file their submission with you and to this office. Due to an unexpected unavailability of an affiant, the City finds itself unable to meet this Friday’s deadline.
If you request an extension of time to make your response submission, you will be offered an equal amount of extra days to do so.
Sincerely,
| Cindy Hamilton, Registrar of Inquiries Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C. 4th Floor, 947 Fort Street, Victoria BC V8V 3K3 tel. 250-356-7953 | fax 250-387-1696 Follow us on Twitter | chamilton@oipc.bc.ca |
Advertisements
These are the replies received from the OiPCBC this afternoon to my questions earlier today as presented in the original post above:
_____________
Dear Mr. Bolin,
At this time, I am offering the extra days equal to the extension I granted yesterday. If, however, you feel you need more time for your response submission when the time comes, you may certainly request it and I will consider your reasons.
Your response submission date will be extended to May 22, 2015.
Regards,
Cindy Hamilton
__________________________________________
Dear Mr. Bolin,
There is no action required on your part. Material that is submitted as proposed for in camera is considered by an adjudicator. It is scrutinized very carefully and only approved on the very strict conditions that it would either; 1) reveal some or all the record at issue, or; 2) portions may be protected from disclosure under a section(s) of FIPPA.
It is very important to the OIPC that in camera material is kept to a minimum as it restricts the adjudicator from being able to give reasons in his or her order as to how and why he/she came to their conclusion regarding that particular material. I can assure you that the adjudicators are very careful in what they allow to be held in camera.
We do not share the adjudicator’s review with the applicant as the decision is at the sole discretion of the adjudicator.
Kind regards,
Cindy Hamilton