Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• ICBC produced substantial volumes of records over several years, yet the petitioner persistently claimed incomplete document production under s. 227 of the Financial Institutions Act and FIPPA

• Denial of office access to review records was acknowledged as improper under s. 227(c) of the FIA, though no remedy was ultimately granted

• The OIPC determined that no valid "request for review" under s. 52 of FIPPA had been properly submitted, despite the petitioner's voluminous filings

• Standing to challenge ICBC's licensing decisions regarding the Western Financial Group was denied under the public interest standing test from Downtown Eastside Sex Workers

• Mandamus relief for further document production was refused on the basis that it would lack practical value and failed the balance of convenience test

• Vexatious litigant-type orders were granted against the petitioner, restraining further repetitive records requests and requiring leave of court for new ones

The parties and background

David Walter Eaglestone, a semi-retired businessperson in Smithers, British Columbia, along with his company Majestic Forest Management Ltd., brought a petition against the Insurance Council of British Columbia ("ICBC") and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia ("OIPC"). Mr. Eaglestone represented himself throughout the proceedings. The case arose from the petitioner's persistent, years-long effort to extract documents from ICBC relating to a group of insurance agencies associated with the Western Financial Group ("WFG"). When asked why he was seeking the documents, Mr. Eaglestone stated he was acting only as a concerned member of the public. He had previously been a party to fire insurance coverage litigation, in which the agencies were peripherally involved, but that matter had since resolved: see Eaglestone v. Intact, 2021 BCSC 271. He did not allege any present personal interest in the agencies' activities.

ICBC's regulatory framework and record-keeping

ICBC regulates insurance agents, salespersons, and adjusters in British Columbia under the Financial Institutions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 144 ("FIA"). Prior to 2008, ICBC required licensees to submit applications for new and renewal licences annually and largely collected and retained that information in paper form. In 2008, ICBC introduced "continuous licensing" to replace its prior system. In 2016, it transitioned its operations to an electronic records system using its new ACCELA software system, ceasing paper-based record-keeping. As part of that transition, ICBC took steps to preserve its paper historical records relating to licensees then in its possession and control. Since 2016, all ICBC processes are electronic, and publicly available licensee information is made accessible through the online Licensee Directory. Under s. 227 of the FIA, ICBC is required to maintain certain records, permit the public to inspect those records at its office, and provide copies on request and on payment of the prescribed fee.

The volume and pattern of requests

Beginning in or about September 2021, the petitioner submitted many requests to ICBC for access to records related to a range of insurance providers and licensed individuals operating since the mid-to-late 2000s, including information about nominees and employee transfers. In 2021 alone, approximately eight FIPPA requests were submitted, along with several additional pieces of correspondence, consuming an estimated 120 hours of ICBC staff time across its legal, licensing, and IT teams. Similar volumes followed in subsequent years: approximately eight requests in 2022 (approximately 70 staff hours), approximately ten requests in 2023 (approximately 100 staff hours), and approximately twenty-three requests between January 1 and November 30, 2024 (approximately 140 staff hours). The petitioner also inundated the OIPC with hundreds of pages of documents across multiple submissions. On July 17, 2024, the OIPC requested that the petitioner refrain from submitting any further documents, yet the petitioner continued to do so. The petition record materials spanned more than six feet.

The document production dispute

The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that there were remaining documents to which he was entitled under s. 227(d) of the FIA. While acknowledging that it took longer than it should have to satisfy all the petitioner's proper requests, the Court attributed the delays partially to the petitioner himself — for delivering many requests that were unnecessarily confusing, repetitive and rambling; for failing to carefully (and fairly) review ICBC's productions to ensure that his follow-up requests had not already been satisfied through earlier productions; for failing to recognize that ICBC's conversion to a fully electronic system would affect how it prepared, received, analyzed and responded to filings; and for failing to accept that, given the historical nature of many of his requests, it was possible that some of his requested documents would simply no longer be available. The Court characterized the hearing as a game of documentary "whack-a-mole," with the petitioner raising an issue regarding the absence of a particular document or category, and counsel for ICBC demonstrating that the document or category had already been produced. Applying the mandamus framework from Paldi Khalsa Diwan Society v. Cowichan Valley (Regional District), 2014 BCCA 335, the Court found no practical value or effect would be achieved by issuing an order for further production, and that the balance of convenience did not justify such an order, given that any residual production would be onerous for ICBC as a public body with limited resources and there was no corresponding prejudice to the petitioner given his lack of direct interest.

The office access issue

The Court acknowledged that ICBC improperly refused the petitioner access to its offices to review documents in person, noting that the rights under s. 227(c) and (d) of the FIA are not stated as alternatives and that the request should not have been refused. However, the Court declined to grant any relief, applying the same mandamus principles. The Court reasoned that there was insufficient evidence that the petitioner had not received the disclosure to which he was entitled, that there was no reason to believe an in-office review would provide any additional utility, and that a visit to the offices would only perpetuate the vexatious conduct supporting the restraining orders made on ICBC's cross-application.

The OIPC jurisdiction question

Several of the petitioner's requested orders relied on FIPPA. The Court found that the petitioner had not fully or properly availed himself of the FIPPA processes by framing either a proper complaint under s. 42 or a proper request for review under s. 52. The OIPC's position was that it was unclear whether the petitioner's voluminous document dumps constituted a complaint under s. 42 or s. 52. The OIPC had provided the petitioner with specific instructions on what he must provide to initiate a formal review, but the petitioner chose not to follow the guidance and simply did not respond in the form directed. The Court accepted that the OIPC, as the administrative tribunal responsible for FIPPA, retains the power to control its own procedures, including the power to prescribe the form in which complaints or requests for review must be submitted to prevent abuse of process. Any aspect of the petition seeking to challenge the OIPC's conduct was dismissed.

Standing and the WFG licensing issue

The petitioner alleged that ICBC failed to properly exercise its statutory authority under the FIA to terminate licences within the WFG Group. The Court found that the petitioner had no standing to raise this complaint. First, he did not follow the proper complaint process outlined on ICBC's website. Second, he did not meet the test for public interest standing set out in Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 at para. 37, which involves an assessment of whether: (1) there is a serious justiciable issue raised; (2) the party has a real stake or genuine interest in the issue; and (3) the proposed action is a reasonable and effective way to address the issue in court. The Court found that none of these three requirements was met. On the merits, ICBC had reviewed its records and found no indication that WFG Group trade names were improperly used, and the Court found no provision within the FIA suggesting that an amalgamation within the WFG Group would invalidate a licence.

The ruling and outcome

The petition was dismissed. On ICBC's cross-application, the Court granted vexatious litigant-type orders: the first order, restraining and enjoining the petitioner from making further requests for access to records or requests to inspect records at ICBC's office in respect of records the petitioner has already requested; and the third order, requiring the petitioner to seek leave of the Court before making any new requests for access to records or requests to inspect records at ICBC's office. The Court found the petitioner had acted in a manner showing the markers of vexatious conduct, including duplicative claims, claims for relief that are unavailable or which would lead to no possible positive outcome, actions brought for an improper purpose, the repeated and consistent filing of prolix and convoluted pleadings, applications, and supporting materials, and of huge volumes of duplicative, irrelevant and non-compliant court materials imposing onerous burdens on other parties. The petitioner's claim for damages or compensation was also refused, as damages are not available as a remedy in judicial review. Regarding costs, the Court determined that no party reached a level of substantial success on the package of applications before it, and ordered that each party shall bear its own costs. No exact monetary amount was awarded to or against either party.