The Tyee

When Public Bodies Create Companies, Public Can't Peer In

Recent court ruling against freedom of info rights is a blow to accountability.

Stanley Tromp, 18 Jan 2012,



Minister of Open Government Margaret MacDiarmid: 'We're looking at it.'


Minister of Open Government Margaret MacDiarmid: 'We're looking at it.'

Without access to records, the media are unable to do their job of getting the public the facts they may have an urgent need to know.

Yet in the past two decades, a serious problem has cropped up that is growing worse. Public bodies have been creating wholly-owned puppet companies to perform many of their functions, and manage billions of dollars in taxpayers' money, while voicing the fiction that these companies are not covered by freedom-of-information (FOI) laws because they are "private and independent."

If a recent court ruling is allowed to stand, and the B.C. FOI law is not amended, then public bodies across Canada will have a green light to shield the records of similar "private" entities, or what the British call "quangos." This would be a disaster for accountability and the public interest.

The obvious and overdue solution is now to shift the topic from the legal to the political arena. In the legislature last fall, the minister of open government "appreciated the spirit" of this needed reform, and pledged to discuss it with the information commissioner. This might appear to be a hopeful sign, but we have heard it all before: Five years ago, the education minister sent out a press release pledging to add the Vancouver School Board's private companies to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPP) Act's coverage, but this was never done. (Yet B.C. local municipalities' subsidiaries are covered by the act.)

Shielding UBC's wholly-owned corporate entities

The problem was highlighted in 2006 when I filed a request to the University of British Columbia under the FOI law. I asked for meeting minutes, annual reports and salary records of three of UBC's wholly-owned corporate entities.

The first was UBC Properties Investments Ltd., whose self-described mission is to "acquire, develop and manage real estate assets for the benefit of the University." It has a near-monopoly on all development that happens on campus, manages private rental housing for non-students and is the landlord for most of the commercial space.

The university's 100 hectares of real estate was once managed by a committee of the UBC Board of Governors, then devolved to the new private company (then called UBC Real Estate Corp.) in 1988. Ever since then, students and staff have bitterly complained about its secrecy, in regards to the new mini-city arising on site, the mass cutting of trees to make way for it and UBC's building of high-priced condos for sale instead of student rental housing.

The second company, UBC Investment Management Trust (IMANT), acts as investment manager of UBC's huge endowment fund and its staff pension assets, making decisions worth billions of dollars of UBC's money. The third, UBC Research Enterprises Inc., takes research developed at UBC and creates spinoff companies in the hopes that the companies' profits will flow back to UBC.

The university denied my FOI request, claiming that the entities are all "independent," and so not under the "control" of UBC as required by the act. I appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the OIPC. (Over many years, the Alma Mater Society (AMS), The Ubyssey and the CUPE staff union had also made unsuccessful FOI requests to the UBC properties branch.)

UBC and its entities then hired a phalanx of lawyers at the public's expense to quash the public's right to know. Yet in April 2009, OIPC adjudicator Michael McEvoy ruled in my favour, writing, "UBC is found to have control of the requested records.... All three bodies were entities created and owned 100 per cent by UBC and accountable to it."

The case was won after I quoted from a dozen of UBC's own official websites, which in fact boasted that UBC had a high degree of control over its entities and appointed their boards. Students celebrated the outcome.

'The corporate veil'

But it was too good to last. UBC appealed the McEvoy ruling to judicial review. Then, in a separate ruling later that year, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Peter Leask stated that various Simon Fraser University (SFU) entities were not covered by the FOIPP Act because one must not "pierce the corporate veil."

UBC argued that the same principle for SFU should apply to it too. Mainly because the applicant in the SFU case, David Noble, had died, all parties agreed to submit this dispute to a second OIPC inquiry. UBC's lawyers argued that the OIPC is "an inferior court," and so the Justice Leask ruling became "the law of the province."

The second OIPC order came down last October. The new adjudicator, Jay Fedorak, sided with UBC because the SFU ruling was binding on the OIPC and he essentially had no choice. To resolve this dilemma, on the same day, the commissioner sent an urgent letter to Margaret MacDiarmid -- minister of labour, citizens' services and open government -- pleading that the law be amended to cover such entities:

What have we missed? What do you think? We want to know. Comment below. Keep in mind:


  • Verify facts, debunk rumours
  • Add context and background
  • Spot typos and logical fallacies
  • Highlight reporting blind spots
  • Ignore trolls
  • Treat all with respect and curiosity
  • Connect with each other

Do not:

  • Use sexist, classist, racist or homophobic language
  • Libel or defame
  • Bully or troll
  • Troll patrol. Instead, flag suspect activity.
comments powered by Disqus