Since June 1, 2026, British Columbia’s Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has generally limited individuals to three open files at a time.
Its guidelines also impose page limits, including two pages for certain initial complaint explanations. These rules may be unfamiliar to most citizens, yet they shape how readily people can challenge public authorities over withheld information.
Have citizens’ statutory rights become subordinate to the convenience of the institution created to defend them?
Fundamental Rights, Conveniently Administered
Commissioner Michael Harvey champions fundamental rights. In 2025, he described privacy as “a fundamental right – a human right.” In May 2026, he called for a new social contract for the Information Age.
Yet his Office’s practices deserve scrutiny against those principles.
The three-file restriction applies across intake, investigation and adjudication. Journalists and certain academic or advocacy-affiliated researchers are exempt. Ordinary citizens, generally, are not.
The social contract, it appears, is most generous to those who already possess institutional support.
Resources are finite. Workloads must be managed and abusive conduct discouraged. But administrative convenience cannot justify restrictions on statutory remedies without scrutiny of their necessity, proportionality and consequences.
An independent information commissioner exists to protect rights precisely when exercising them becomes inconvenient.
Bill 9 and the Commissioner’s Confidence
Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, expanded circumstances in which public bodies may seek authorization to disregard access requests, including abusive or malicious behaviour and unreasonable interference with operations.
Safeguards against genuinely abusive requests are legitimate. But they demand careful limits.
In a March 19 interview with The Tyee, Harvey described BC’s legislation as “one of the best FOI laws in the country” and expressed confidence that it would remain so. He emphasized operational difficulties and maintained that he would oppose changes weakening his Office’s statutory authority.
Yet protecting the Commissioner’s authority is not synonymous with protecting citizens’ effective access to information.
There is little comfort in being assured that rights remain intact on paper while the procedures for exercising them grow steadily less accessible.
What the Watchdog Does Not Know
In June 2026, I requested complaint outcomes disaggregated by ethnic and demographic criteria. On June 15, under File GEN-F-26-00508, the OIPC’s legal counsel replied:
“The OIPC does not collect ethnic or demographic criteria from individuals, therefore, the OIPC cannot provide the kind of record you are specifically requesting.”
This does not establish discrimination. Demographic data collection requires appropriate safeguards. But restrictions on statutory remedies should be supported by evidence of who bears their costs.
How many complainants have been affected? How many complaints declined, deferred or abandoned? Are exceptions applied consistently? Do restrictions disproportionately burden citizens pursuing complex matters? Do they create unequal barriers for Indigenous, racialized or otherwise marginalized applicants?
And how would the Office know?
Aggregate statistics cannot establish whether administrative restrictions affect communities unequally. Harvey advocates improved performance reporting by public bodies. His own Office should face comparable scrutiny.
Independence Is a Public Trust
The Commissioner’s independence is essential. Governments must not interfere with individual investigations or adjudications.
But independence protects the public interest, not the institutional comfort of the officeholder.
Under section 38(2) of BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must remove or suspend the Commissioner for cause or incapacity upon a recommendation supported by two-thirds of the Legislative Assembly members present.
That demanding threshold protects independence. Policy disagreement does not establish cause. The threshold must never become a political weapon. Yet independence does not confer immunity from accountability.
The Legislature must distinguish interference with adjudication from legitimate scrutiny of administrative policies and institutional performance.
A Test for the New Legislature
British Columbia’s incoming government and Legislature face two responsibilities.
First, review Bill 9 and consider repealing or amending provisions incompatible with effective information rights.
Second, commission an independent examination of the OIPC’s three-file restriction, submission limits, exemptions, complaint outcomes and performance reporting.
The examination should establish whether restrictions are justified, proportionate and fairly administered. Harvey must have every opportunity to present evidence and respond.
That is what procedural fairness requires—and what citizens should expect from his Office.
The Social Contract Begins at Home
Harvey is right that fundamental rights and institutional accountability are indispensable to public trust. But those principles cannot operate in one direction only.
The Legislature should not confuse the independence of an office with the infallibility of its occupant. A watchdog’s credibility rests not on the grandeur of its public declarations, but on the standards it applies when citizens seek its protection.
Yerzhan Dosmukhamedov, DPhil (Oxon), is an independent policy analyst based in Vancouver and a former Senior Associate Member of St Antony’s College, University of Oxford.
