The OIPCBC Related Documents Arrive
Ron Bolin: May 7, 2015
The following four pages form the introduction to a multi-pound document which I received this morning and which, it appears, I am unlikely to receive in electronic form. As I have not had a chance to read more that these four pages -and that quickly- you may have to wait some days before seeing the rest, assuming that there are no hitches in the publication process.
See the four introductory pages from the circa 1kg document here:
I have not had a chance to even begin with the substantive text, but hope to get to it this week. I will consider the question of publishing same after having a chance to review their contents. I anticipate that this will take some time as there is much to consider and the question about liability is a vexing one.
Yesterday, before receiving the documents, I sent the following email:
From: Ron Bolin
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:44 PM
Subject: RE: OIPC File F14-58563
Dear Ms. MacEachern:
While I appreciate that you will be sending your submission by courier, it would be greatly appreciated if you could provide an electronic copy of the documents.
Is this doable?
This morning I sent the following email after receiving the package and reading the four pages presented above which threaten “legal complications”.
From: Ron Bolin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 12:13 PM
To: Carolyn MacEachern; Cindy Hamilton
Subject: Fw: OIPC File F14-58563
Dear Ms. MacEachern:
This will acknowledge receipt of your submission this morning. I note in the covering documents that you have asked that I not publish the already redacted documents which you have provided and thus take it that you will not be providing an electronic copy. Am I correct in this interpretation?
Dear Ms. Hamilton:
I would appreciate your advice as to the OIPCBC’s interpretation of the City’s request that I not publish the substantive documents which they have provided to us. It is indeed ironic that this issue which was raised by the redaction of a public record should now proceed to produce still more redacted public records and a request that I keep even these from publication. I find it inappropriate that I should be asked to protect the City from damages resulting from the words or actions of their employees in this matter and request the OIPCBC’s comments on my freedom to publish without hindrance these documents which I consider public as it has been stated that any information contained in them which has been considered to be in-camera has already been redacted.
I look forward to your response and thank you for your consideration.
The following response was promptly received from Ms. MacEachern:
You are correct. The City has provided the submissions and affidavits to you for the purposes of this Inquiry only as noted in my letter to you. We are not providing this information electronically, given the risk of legal complications for the City and others, including yourself, that can arise if this material is re-published.
Barrister & Solicitor
t: 604.689.7400 | f: 604.689.3444
Young, Anderson | 1616 – 808 Nelson Street | Box 12147 Nelson Square | Vancouver | BC | V6Z 2H2
As I peruse the substantive documents, I look forward to your comments and suggestions.