New Brunswick’s Ombud has upheld the Department of Health’s refusal to release portions of emails with outside organizations about its Pharmacist Care Clinic pilot, finding that the disputed advice could be protected despite originating outside government.
The July 2, 2026 report by the Office of the Ombud for New Brunswick, New Brunswick (Health) (Re), 2026 NBOMBUD 4, Report of Findings 25/26-AP-066, concerns a narrow dispute over two email exchanges. Ombud Marie-France Pelletier confirmed the department’s remaining refusal under paragraph 26(1)(a) of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The applicant had requested records about the pilot’s operation and evaluation, including usage, patient satisfaction, effects on emergency departments, costs and correspondence with pharmacists, their organizations and pharmacy businesses. The request covered information from August 2023 to March 2025.
The department initially provided partial access. Once the complaint reached formal investigation, it released information previously withheld on third-party privacy and business-interest grounds, along with some material initially protected as advice. Those disclosures narrowed the dispute. The Ombud did not make findings about other withheld details that the applicant did not continue to challenge.
The applicant questioned whether communications with outsiders could qualify as advice to a public body. The applicant argued that the usual rationale was to protect candid advice from civil servants to ministers, and that a wider reading could shield virtually any stakeholder comment. The applicant also argued that the department could choose to release the material even if the exception applied. The applicant further submitted that the program had been cancelled six months earlier and that the minister had been interviewed about its successes and challenges.
The department responded that the statute does not restrict who may provide advice. It said one organization had worked with it on the pilot and participated in launch decisions, while another supplied advice or recommendations within a deliberative process. It declined to exercise its discretion in favour of further disclosure.
Pelletier explained that paragraph 26(1)(a) permits withholding information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal advice, opinions, proposals or recommendations developed by or for a public body or minister. The public body bears the burden of establishing that access can be refused.
Applying the exception requires both qualifying information and a considered decision to withhold it. A public body must assess the individual request, including the public interest in disclosure. The Ombud can ask it to reconsider a discretionary decision made in bad faith, for an improper purpose, on irrelevant considerations or without considering relevant factors; she cannot simply replace its discretion with her own.
The pilot’s collaborative structure was decisive. The department and the New Brunswick College of Pharmacists worked together to test an expanded primary-care model at six locations. The New Brunswick Institute for Research, Data and Training was engaged to evaluate the pilot. Pelletier found a genuine need for frank discussions with the partners involved in developing and assessing possible changes to health-care delivery.
After reviewing the disputed passages, she accepted that they contained advice or opinions developed and shared with the department as those processes unfolded. She also accepted that the department had considered relevant factors when deciding to withhold them. The participants’ location outside government did not defeat the exception in these circumstances.
The report nevertheless rejects an automatic shield for outside comments. Pelletier distinguished this collaboration from unsolicited feedback or efforts to influence government, and described protection for outside advice as available in rare, limited cases. The result preserves the specific email redactions without establishing that every communication from a private organization is exempt from access.
