MIDDLETON – Council is not using the FOI process to embarrass the mayor

In August 2025, the City received a Freedom of Information request from a media outlet seeking Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s emails and text messages over a two‑month period. Some of the requested records were on the Mayor’s personal cellphone and in personal email accounts, which the City cannot access without the Mayor’s cooperation.

City staff took extensive steps to comply with the FOI request, including issuing 15 formal notices asking the Mayor to search his emails and text messages and provide the relevant records to the City for review, redaction of personal information, and disclosure in accordance with FIPPA. The Mayor did not provide any records to the City.

I am aware the Mayor claims he texted me the records. He did not. He has been told numerous times that his text never went through. The City’s IT Division has confirmed that no such records were received. If he had sent them, it should have been no trouble for him to resend them so that the FOI request could be processed. He refused.

Because no records were received, the City was unable to disclose any records to the applicant by the statutory deadline. The applicant notified the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) and that office opened an Inquiry. The OIPC Inquiry is currently active, and the City was required to respond with its affidavit evidence and submissions by March 27^th.

Although the applicant withdrew their FOI request today, we do not yet know whether the OIPC will cancel the Inquiry or continue investigating the matter. The Mayor still has not provided the records to the City and we understand that he has now disclosed unredacted records directly to the applicant, including sensitive personal information about an employee that was unrelated to the FOI request. If this is true, then it is a serious privacy breach under FIPPA.

In short, this situation could have been avoided if the Mayor had provided the records to the City in the usual manner, as required under FIPPA and is standard for elected officials. As it stands, the applicant did not receive access to the records, the Mayor’s and the City’s statutory obligations were not met, and at least one person’s privacy appears to have been compromised.

Follow Up Re: Need for Council’s March 10 Resolution

The OIPC’s formal Inquiry did not begin until late February 2026. Once it started, the City faced tight and mandatory deadlines to file affidavits and written submissions. Participation was not optional – the City is legally required to take part in Inquiries.

Council’s resolution was a last effort to get the Mayor to comply so that he and the City could meet their obligations under FIPPA without need of a formal Inquiry. Before that point, staff had already done everything they reasonably could to obtain the requested records so the City could comply with the law. However, staff do not have the authority to compel any elected official to act. Only councils can formally direct a member of council to comply with their legal obligations. It was the Mayor’s continued refusal to do so that made a council resolution necessary.

To be clear, this was not council using the FOI process to single out or embarrass the Mayor. The purpose of the resolution was to require compliance with FIPPA so the Inquiry could be brought to an end. As with the rest of this situation, all of this could have been avoided if the Mayor had complied with FIPPA from the outset.

MARGOT MIDDLETON,
Councillor, City of Kamloops

EDITOR’S NOTE: I’m attempting to obtain further clarification on a number of points regarding this situation and will update as it becomes available.