The applicant has been involved in a long-standing dispute with the Yukon Government about land on which the Government says the applicant is “squatting” (a colloquial term used to denote the unauthorized occupation of land). The applicant made two separate requests for records related to a legal opinion and legal advice on the issue to both the Department of Justice and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.

The Study is entitled “Wind Assessment Feasibility Study” and the contents reveal it is a study of the feasibility of wind power. The Study clearly indicates that it has been done and written in relation to a project of the Yukon Energy Corporation. The record is a feasibility study relating to a project of the Public Body and, as such, the Public Body must not refuse to disclose it, except for redactions recommended by the IPC.

Are Yukon Government Deputy Ministers entitled to personal privacy even though they are public servants, and the activities of the Government of Yukon are subject to public scrutiny?

The Complainant received a number of records in response to a request for access to records. Among the records released was a copy of a specialist medical report describing the Complainant’s present and past medical issues. The report was provided to the Public Body by the Complainant’s physician as an attachment to Form B – Yukon Supplementary Allowance Medical Report, completed by the physician for the purpose of establishing eligibility for the Yukon Supplementary Allowance (YSA). The report included the specialist’s findings and treatment notes, some unrelated to the Complainant’s application for YSA. The Complainant questioned the need for the Public Body to have this report for the purpose of making a decision about eligibility for YSA. In addition, the Complainant questioned the need for some of the information requested in Form B itself.

A decision to deny an inquiry results in an Applicant being denied the right to review a public body’s decision regarding the requested records. When making a decision that impacts these rights, the importance of the rights protected by the ATIPP Act must be borne in mind. In this case, the IPC exercised her discretion to decline the Applicant's request to hold an inquiry, finding that it was plain and obvious that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third party privacy.

The Applicant requested a review of the decision of the Department to refuse access to records containing information relating to legal fees paid to a particular law firm for services in matters involving the Applicant, over a specific period of time. The Applicant argued that access to the amounts of total fees paid from public funds should be available as they are not subject to solicitor client privilege.

The Applicant requested a review of the decision of the Department to refuse access to one record: a two-page retainer letter for legal services. The Applicant argued the Department had waived the privilege when the Premier, as the Minister of Finance, spoke publicly about the resulting legal opinion.