VICTORIA, BC | On Wednesday, a civil rights advocate will hold a press conference to announce the filing of a petition for judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia (OIPC) not to order the disclosure of internal investigation reports into allegations of misconduct by multiple City of Victoria bylaw officers.
WHERE: In front of Bylaw Services’ office, 12 Centennial Square, Victoria
WHEN: Wednesday July 15 2026 at 2PM
The existence of the reports in question has been revealed on October 30 2025 by CTV News, which published an article titled “Victoria bylaw department marred by bullying, discrimination investigations” in which two former City of Victoria Community Safety and Bylaw Services employees went public with allegations of widespread misconduct within the department. The reporting is accompanied by a brief summary obtained from the City of Victoria via a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, in the form of a table showing that several complaints of discrimination and harassment in the past few years have been found by internal investigations to be either founded or partially founded.
The next day, CTV News published a follow-up article featuring the municipality’s official response, including an interview of the Mayor in which she expressed disappointment but denies the municipal council can do much to intervene; “In general, it would be unusual for a governance board to interfere in personnel (matters),” she said.
On November 19 2025, Girard filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request with the City of Victoria for the investigation reports. The request was ultimately denied under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), on the grounds that these were employment records. The municipality held its ground without explanation even when the complainant countered with s. 25(1)(b) of FIPPA, which states disclosure must nevertheless be made if clearly in the public interest, and explicitly prevails over the remainder of FIPPA.
Therefore the complainant requested a review of the decision by the OIPC, expressing concern that lack of disclosure undermined public confidence in the department’s capacity to carry out its duties to the public in accordance with human rights law. He enumerated a litany of factors weighing in favour of public interest disclosure, including but not limited to:
- the extraordinary number of recent complaints found to be either founded or partially founded (eight for a department of thirty-five employees);
- diversity, equity, and inclusion consulting firm INclusion INcorporated’s stance that those numbers were extremely high and warranted serious intervention;
- one of the complainants outright called for an independent investigation;
- the nature of the offences falls within the scope of s. 13 of the Human Rights Code, consequently calling into question the department’s ability to serve the public in compliance with s. 8 of the Code;
- if adjudicated by the BC Human Rights Tribunal, the proceedings would be made public due to inherent public interest;
- the municipality’s noncommittal response essentially precludes any political solution;
- the complainants who went public were whistleblowers dissatisfied by whatever steps the municipality did undertake to address their concerns;
- the purpose of the aptly-named Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) is to protect government employees who blow the whistle from retaliation, given the inherent public interest in such disclosure;
- the BC Ombudsperson recommended that the scope of PIDA be extended to local governments and municipal police departments;
- the lack of such protection acts as a barrier which may prevent complainants from openly seeking relief, including legal recourse;
- public disclosure is the obvious last resort at this stage, short of which no independent investigation and no meaningful public debate can take place.
In contrast, the municipality hasn’t put forward a single argument against the invocation of the public interest disclosure clause of FIPPA. Yet in his decision, issued on May 20 2026, OIPC Investigations Director Nathan Elliot either weighed against or ignored all of the above, in favour of the duty to protect personal information from harmful disclosure, without providing any meaningful analysis in support of this stance. He also claims, using as sole evidence the release of a summary via an FOI request by CTV News and media reports of the municipality’s evasive response, that the municipality has taken steps toward accountability and that the purpose of FIPPA to make public bodies more accountable through greater transparency had somehow been achieved. And he advanced without basis that the information already available in the media made public disclosure less compelling.
On June 24, Girard filed a petition for judicial review at the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, as File No. 2615294: Martin Girard v The Corporation of the City of Victoria and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia (see attachment). Under Supreme Court Civil Rules, the respondents have until Wednesday July 15 at 2PM to file a response; neither has at the time of this writing.
In the petition, Girard argues that the decision makes unreasonable findings of fact, ignores crucial evidence, gives overwhelming weight to irrelevant factors, invokes arbitrary criteria, and runs counter to recent jurisprudence.
Law enforcement officers across the country have long complained about both rampant discrimination among their ranks, and being funneled into labour arbitration under collective agreements, which would indeed limit their ability to pursue legal action. The labour arbitration process has recently been decried by plaintiffs as inadequate for their grievances in Weeks v City of Abbotsford:
“The plaintiffs argue that the claims are not merely about working conditions. They say the essential character of the dispute is an institutional failure throughout British Columbia—spanning across all police boards, municipal employers, and levels of government—to keep the municipal police forces free from gender-based discrimination. The plaintiffs submit that the issues they seek to address are so pervasively embedded in police culture that this case is about something completely different than a dispute over working conditions.”
On a different front, freedom of information legislation has come under attack countrywide in recent months. In particular, BC’s Bill 9, titled the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, has been sharply criticized by civil rights advocates for introducing language that would give public officials greater latitude to arbitrarily deny or delay disclosure of public records.
The BC Human Rights Commissioner, the BC Ombudsperson, and civil liberties associations have been invited to intervene in the judicial review.
ABOUT THE ORGANIZER:
Martin Girard is a community advocate running as a candidate for Victoria’s council in the upcoming municipal elections in October 2026, on a platform of transparency and accountability for public officials. More at martingirardforvictoriacouncil.ca.
CONTACT: Martin Girard
EMAIL: martin.girard@martingirardforvictoriacouncil.ca
PHONE: 7787005647
REFERENCES:
- CTV News: Victoria bylaw department marred by bullying, discrimination investigations
- CTV News: Victoria mayor calls bullying investigations in bylaw department ‘disappointing’
- Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
- BC Human Rights Code
- Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA)
- PIDA Special Report No. 5 (Proposed amendments: Lessons from the first five years of the Public Interest Disclosure Act)
- Bill 9: Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Amendment Act, 2026
- The Narwhal: Why critics say changes to B.C.’s freedom of information law could make government less transparent
- Weeks v Abbotsford (City), 2025 BCSC 2120
- Vancouver Sun: B.C. Appeal Court dismisses female police officers’ sexual harassment case