Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner
Province of British Columbia
Order No. 80-1996
January 23, 1996
INQUIRY RE: A decision by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to
withhold records relating to the Motor Vehicle Registration database
Fourth Floor
1675 Douglas Street
Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4
Telephone: 604-387-5629
Facsimile: 604-387-1696
Web Site: http://www.cafe.net/gvc/foi
1. Introduction
As Information and Privacy Commissioner, I conducted a written inquiry on
November 29, 1995 under section 56 of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). This inquiry arose out of a request
by the applicant, for review of a decision by the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), (the public body) to withhold records
relating to the Motor Vehicle registration database. The applicant wanted the names
and addresses for registered owners of vehicles located at a specific place in
Vancouver on a specific date in 1994.
The Motor Vehicle Branch (MVB) of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways
and the Everywoman's Health Centre of Vancouver made submissions as intervenors
in the inquiry.
2. Issue
The issue in this inquiry is whether the public body properly applied
sections 19 and 22 of the Act to withhold the records under review. The relevant
portions of these sections are as follows:
Disclosure harmful to individual or public safety
19(1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant
information, including personal information about the applicant, if the
disclosure could reasonably be expected to
Disclosure harmful to personal privacy
22(1) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose personal information
to an applicant if the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third
party's personal privacy.
(2) In determining under subsection (1) or (3) whether a disclosure of
personal information constitutes an unreasonable invasion of a third party's
personal privacy, the head of a public body must consider all the relevant
circumstances, including whether
The public body responded to the applicant's request for records by answering
the applicant's nineteen questions. Not all of the questions contained
requests for records. The public body did not disclose any records in response
to the applicant's questions (with the exception of question 13), but provided
answers for nine questions.
The applicant acknowledged that eight questions had been answered or need not
be answered at this time. Four additional questions are not requests for
records and cannot be dealt with in this written inquiry. This leaves seven
questions for this written inquiry, as follows:
Question 3: the identity of the person who requested the search of the motor
vehicle registration database and the names and addresses of all persons and
agencies to whom the resulting information was made available.
Question 4: a copy of the record(s) that initiated the motor vehicle
registration search and the names and addresses of all persons and agencies who
initiated the searches.
Questions 15-19: the names and addresses for service of the registered owners
of five motor vehicle licence numbers.
Section 57 of the Act establishes the burden of proof on the parties in this
inquiry.
1. In respect of information withheld by the public body under section 19 of
the Act, it is up to the public body to prove that the applicant has no right
of access to the record or part of the record. Thus ICBC has to prove that
the applicant has no right of access to the records that would respond to his
questions.
2. In respect of third-party personal information withheld by the public body
under section 22 of the Act, it is up to the applicant to prove that disclosure
of the personal information would not be an unreasonable invasion of the third
party's personal privacy. Thus the applicant has to prove that release of the
personal information he seeks will not be an unreasonable invasion of the
personal privacy of third parties.
3. The applicant's case as the applicant
The applicant submitted a lengthy rationale for this access request, mainly
centering around his views on the practice of abortion and the criminal
conspiracy that he perceives as surrounding it, involving the government, the
public service, the police, the courts, and my Office. For example:
For the purposes of this ICBC Review argument, my point again is that the New
Democratic Party have so much filth and corruption stored up inside their
little abortion enterprises that they cannot afford one single glimmer of
public scrutiny to penetrate the Berlin Wall of Denial. (Submission of the applicant, p. 7)
The applicant argues that ICBC has not provided any objective grounds for a
reasonable "man" to suppose that the disclosure of the records in dispute, by
responding to his questions, will result in any specific harm to individuals.
ICBC is only denying him access "to protect criminals thus saving the NDP from
embarassment." (Submission of the applicant, p. 9) According to applicant:
If abortionists are really afraid of me, it is because they are terrified that
what I say is true: they are murderers and they will answer to God Almighty.
It is an awful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.
(Submission of the applicant, p. 10)
4. ICBC's case as the public body
ICBC has refused to disclose additional information to the applicant on the
basis of sections 19(1)(a) and 22 of the Act. I have discussed below its
specific arguments with respect to these sections of the Act.
The applicant generally wants licence plate information about third parties.
ICBC argues under section 19 that:
In this case releasing the names of individuals who had been at or around the
abortion clinic at the relevant time would threaten their safety and mental or
physical health. It is clear from recent events that persons who are in the
delivery or receipt of abortion services are at risk of being physically harmed
or even killed by radical elements of the anti-abortion movement. Recent
shootings in both Canada and the U.S. of doctors who are so engaged bear
testimony to that fact. As well, they and their patients are frequently
subjected to protests at the site of the abortion clinic. At the least,
revealing the names and home addresses would subject these individuals to
harassment in the form of protests at their home and delivery of unwanted mail.
At the worst, it puts all these people at risk of being assaulted or killed.
(Submission of ICBC, paragraph 19)
In this connection, ICBC relies on my Order No. 7-1994, April 11, 1994, p. 6
and on the comments made in the applicant's recent correspondence with ICBC.
(Submission of ICBC, paragraphs 21-33):
It is ICBC's submission that, based on the Commissioner's findings in Order 7,
the notoriety of the applicant, and the comments contained in the correspondence
in the instant case, there is a substantive objective threat of harm to the
registered owners of the licence plates in question since it is likely that
they are all either clients of the clinic or are staff or volunteers working
there. ICBC also believes that releasing the names of those who initiated or
received the results of the plate search would jeopardize those individuals on
the above noted evidence of the applicant's propensity to violence. (Submission
of ICBC, paragraph 34)
ICBC further denies access to specific license plate information under
section 22 of the Act on the grounds that it would violate the privacy rights of these
individuals. It notes that section 22 is a mandatory exception and that the
burden of proof is on the applicant. (Submission of ICBC, paragraphs 35-40)
As noted below, ICBC relies specifically upon sections 22(3)(a) and (d) and
section 22(2)(c). (Submission of ICBC, paragraphs 41-51)
5. The Motor Vehicle Branch (MVB)'s case as an intervenor
The Motor Vehicle Branch strongly opposes the applicant's request and
supports the positions taken by ICBC. It emphasizes the high standards that I
have set for disclosure under sections 19 and 22 in my Orders No. 7-1994, April
11, 1994, pp. 4, 6, and No. 18-1994, July 21, 1994, and Investigation Report
P95-005, March 31, 1995, and urges me to follow these precedents in this
inquiry for purposes of consistency. MVB argues that Order No. 7-1994, April
11, 1994 implies that "those attending at abortion clinics would be included in
the types of individuals whose safety or mental or physical health is
threatened. You clearly recognized that the intentions of the Applicant must
be considered."
The MVB states that Investigation Report P95-005 which concerned the Motor
Vehicle Database, "attempted to heighten public awareness of individual privacy
rights and privacy risks associated with such databases. The present request
by the Applicant is a clear example of those risks and an infringement of the
rights of people whose information is contained in that database."
MVB concludes that to release any of the information requested "would clearly
be an infringement of the privacy rights of the individuals involved and a very
serious threat to their physical or mental health and safety."
6. The Everywoman's Health Centre case as an intervenor
Everywoman's Health Centre's submission supported ICBC's decision to withhold
records under sections 19 and 22 of the Act in accordance with my Order
No. 7-1994.
7. Discussion
I offer one example of the approach that the applicant takes to my role as
Commissioner in order to give some sense of the tone of his submissions, which
makes it difficult to me to take seriously his various protestations of
innocence with respect to the persons whose personal information he is
requesting:
... [I]f you deny my rights to access information I need to make full answer
and defence in my appeal, I will put your name on the list of those conspiring
to obstruct Justice. One way or another I will make you answer at law. Mark
my words: I will hound you right out of the civil service and I will sue you
for misfeasance. (Submission of the applicant, p. 5)
From the very beginning, the main thrust of my effort is to make people think
for themselves about whether or not the child in the womb has a right to life
.... Which is where you come in sir. If you shut me out now while I am still
being reasonable, don't come crying to me later about vigilantes who take the
law into their own hands to stop abortionists one way or the other. I exhort
you to deal with me, because you sure don't want to deal with the guys who come
after me. (Submission of the applicant, p. 11)
This approach, and the language thereof, closely resembles what I described in
greater detail in my Order No. 7-1994, pp. 4-6. ICBC further used the last
quote to support its fears, with respect to section 19, that the release of the
names of the individuals at the clinic to the applicant might result in their
names being given to "vigilantes." (Reply Submission of ICBC, p. 3)
Is Motor Vehicle Registration information public data?
The applicant submits that the "principle at issue overall is whether it is an
invasion of privacy for a public body to make available data which is on public
record. Obviously, if a piece of data is on the public record, it is a matter
of public business thus ought to be open for inspection." (Submission of the applicant, p. 10) ICBC correctly points out that the Motor Vehicle Database is in
fact not a matter of public record, in the sense of being generally available
for public access, a point further made in our Investigation Report P95-005.
Section 19(1)(a): threaten anyone else's safety or mental or physical
health
The applicant claims that I cannot make a finding of threat to the physical or
mental well-being of individuals without naming specific individuals who are at
risk:
I put you on notice that failing to name the individual(s) whose mental or
physical well-being you say is jeopardized by release of the information at
issue will constitute a failure to deliver due process. Failing stating
detailed facts about REAL harms potential upon REAL people, then the
Commissar's opinion is unfounded. The Commissar reveals his own part in the
NDP campaign to demonize me with vague hypothetical smear tactics. (Submission
of the applicant, p. 11)
I have noted in prior orders that there is no statutory requirement that the
real or potential harms to individuals must be specified in precise detail.
However, ICBC noted that the applicant states that ICBC's failure to disclose
information to him means that he is prevented "from examining the abortionist
who performed criminal abortion upon the customer August 3, 1994."
This supports ICBC's objective concern that if the applicant receives the names
of the individuals in question, he will harass them and this supports ICBC's
refusal to allow access to the records on section 19 grounds. (Reply
Submission of ICBC)
It cites additional evidence of the same sort that there is a very real
likelihood of harassment of women who may have, or may consider having,
abortions.
Based on the submission of ICBC, I find that it has met the burden of proof to
rely on this section to deny access to the applicant to the licence plate
information he requested.
Section 22(3)(a): the personal information relates to a medical,
psychiatric or psychological history, diagnosis, condition, treatment or
evaluation
ICBC argues that the licence plate information in dispute may relate to a
medical treatment or evaluation:
Releasing the names of these individuals to the applicant could reveal the fact
that they underwent a sensitive medical treatment (abortion) or received
medical advice concerning such a treatment and such a disclosure would be an
unreasonable invasion of their privacy. (Submission of ICBC, paragraphs
41-42)
Although ICBC "is not in a position to ascertain the exact relationship of the
people whose names and addresses are being requested to the clinic," it claims
that "it is reasonable to assume that a majority of these people would be
patients at the clinic." (Submission of ICBC, paragraph 40)
I find that there is a presumption against disclosure of the personal
information in dispute under section 22(3)(a) of the Act for reasons set forth
by ICBC.
Section 22(3)(d): the personal information relates to employment,
occupational or educational history
ICBC argues that releasing the personal information in dispute might reveal
that individuals were volunteers or staff of the clinic, which would be part of
their employment history. (Submission of ICBC, paragraph 43) I find that the
connection between licence plate numbers and job location falls under this
section in the context of this particular case.
Section 22(2)(e): the third party will be exposed unfairly to financial
or other harm
ICBC, for reasons previously argued in connection with section 19, is
concerned that third parties might be exposed to harm on the basis of the
proposed disclosures. (Submission of ICBC, paragraphs 13-34 and 44, 45) I
agree that this was a relevant circumstance for ICBC to consider in reaching
its decision in this matter. It is also a relevant factor which supports a
finding that section 22(1) applies to the information requested in this case.
Section 22(2)(c): the personal information is relevant to a fair
determination of the applicant's rights
ICBC notes that the applicant seeks access to this information to prepare for
an appeal of an assault charge against him. It argues that he should use the
criminal justice system to obtain the information he requires: "Given the
concerns around the personal safety of individuals connected with the abortion
clinic, these considerations are best determined by a court of law."
(Submission of ICBC, paragraphs 46-51) I agree with ICBC that this is the
appropriate avenue for the applicant to use, in this particular case, to seek
redress of this particular concern.
In my opinion, the applicant has not established that section 22(2)(c)
requires disclosure for a "fair determination of his rights." I am not
persuaded that the particular third-party personal information in this case is
relevant to a fair determination of rights in the court processes that he is
currently involved in.
The burden of proof: section 22
With respect to the section 22 arguments, the burden of proof is on the
applicant, and I find that he has not met it.
I find that, under section 22(1), disclosure of the information requested
would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy of the third parties.
8.
Order
I find that ICBC was authorized to refuse access to the information requested
under section 19 of the Act. I also find that ICBC was required to refuse
access to the same information under section 22(1).
Under section 58(2)(b), I confirm the decision of ICBC to refuse access to the
information requested by the applicant. Under section 58(2)(c), I require ICBC
to refuse access to the same information.
January 23, 1996
David H. Flaherty
Commissioner