In an escalating legal battle that underscores growing tensions between public health authorities and information seekers, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has issued three additional court orders against Northern Health for repeatedly failing to meet Freedom of Information request deadlines. This development marks a significant intensification in what has become a pattern of compliance failures by the health authority.
The case stems from information requests filed in late 2023 that Northern Health has consistently failed to address within legislated timeframes. Justice David Crerar issued the latest orders on May 31, adding to mounting legal pressure on the health authority to fulfill its obligations under BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
“This persistent pattern of non-compliance raises serious questions about transparency in our public health institutions,” said Arthur Grant, the lawyer representing the applicant. “We’re seeing deadlines extended repeatedly, only to be ignored again and again.”
According to court documents obtained by CO24, Northern Health has now missed at least seven extended deadlines for various information requests since December 2023. The health authority has cited “exceptional circumstances” including staffing shortages and competing priorities for the delays, but the court has found these explanations insufficient to justify the repeated breaches.
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner had previously intervened, setting firm response deadlines which Northern Health subsequently missed, prompting the legal action. The information being sought reportedly relates to health policy decisions and resource allocations during recent years.
Health policy experts note that timely access to information is crucial for accountability in public institutions. Dr. Marion Weatherby, a health policy researcher at the University of British Columbia, told CO24, “Transparency isn’t just a legal obligation—it’s fundamental to maintaining public trust in our healthcare system, particularly after the challenges of recent years.”
Northern Health serves approximately 300,000 people across northern British Columbia, covering nearly two-thirds of the province’s geographical area. The health authority’s communications department declined to comment specifically on the ongoing litigation when contacted, stating only that they “take information access obligations seriously” and are “working to address the backlog of requests.”
The case has caught the attention of transparency advocates across Canada, who view it as a test of the effectiveness of provincial freedom of information laws. Michael Vonn of the BC Civil Liberties Association noted, “When public bodies can repeatedly ignore legal obligations with minimal consequences, it undermines the entire framework of government accountability.”
The court has ordered Northern Health to respond to the outstanding requests within 14 days and to pay court costs associated with the proceedings. Legal experts suggest that continued non-compliance could potentially lead to contempt of court charges against the health authority.
As this legal battle unfolds in British Columbia’s north, it raises a broader question for Canadians concerned with institutional transparency: When our public institutions repeatedly fail to meet their legal obligations regarding information disclosure, what recourse do citizens truly have beyond endless court applications?
