B.C. privacy adjudicator restricts Cimolai’s proceedings but rejects blanket access ban

B.C.’s information and privacy watchdog has cancelled seven pending files involving Nevio Cimolai and required him to obtain permission before starting another complaint or review, after finding that his conduct abused its processes. The order also changes how public bodies and private organizations can seek permission to disregard his access requests, but stops short of banning future requests altogether.

In Order F26-84, 2026 BCIPC 106, dated October 5, 2026, adjudicator Amy O’Connor concluded that repeated unsupported allegations, excessive irrelevant material and disregard of instructions had consumed disproportionate public resources. Earlier orders finding abuse of process had not changed the pattern, she found.

Cimolai vigorously disputed the proceeding’s legitimacy and fairness, alleging bias and arguing that public bodies’ conduct, rather than his own, explained the volume and complexity of the disputes. O’Connor rejected those objections after considering his submissions in full. She nevertheless declined a remedy barring all future access requests because she could not conclude that every future request would necessarily be abusive.

A long history did not make every file an adverse decision

Cimolai, a former employee of BC Children’s Hospital and the University of British Columbia, began dealing with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in 2002. The record listed 317 files connected with his matters under the public-sector Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and private-sector Personal Information Protection Act.

Those were files, not 317 distinct access requests or 317 adverse decisions. O’Connor acknowledged that a single access request could generate multiple files. The 310 concluded files had varied outcomes, including adjudication, mediation, withdrawal and cancellation. Seven remained open, involving the Provincial Health Services Authority, UBC and the ministries of Health and Finance.

The OIPC initiated this proceeding and paused the seven files while it considered whether Cimolai’s conduct amounted to abuse of process. The four public bodies were invited to participate because their pending matters could be affected. Two earlier orders had already closed 26 of his files for abuse of process, and the B.C. Supreme Court had upheld one of those orders on judicial review.

O’Connor treated the new inquiry as inquisitorial, with no formal burden of proof. Her task was to assess abuse of process as part of administering the two statutes, rather than decide whether one opposing party had proved a conventional claim. She relied on the commissioner’s authority to control OIPC procedures and protect its ability to provide fair and timely service.

Procedural objections were considered and rejected

Cimolai challenged the office’s authority to initiate the proceeding, its submission limits and deadlines, the participation of selected public bodies, and the fairness of its file list and historical examples. He also alleged bias or conflicts involving the OIPC, public bodies and their representatives, and maintained that his access rights had constitutional protection.

O’Connor found that earlier OIPC and court decisions had addressed several of those arguments. On fairness, she found no explanation of how the deadlines had prevented him from presenting his case, and no evidence that he had sought an adjournment. Although his initial submissions totalled 340 pages and his reply 59 pages, she considered everything submitted rather than excluding the oversized materials.

The public bodies’ participation was appropriate because each was involved in an outstanding file, she found. Cimolai had not explained how adding other parties would help decide the issues. The file list accurately reflected multiple files arising from individual requests. His bias allegations did not displace the presumption of impartiality; government funding of an independent legislative office did not establish the conflict he alleged.

O’Connor also limited the evidence on which she relied. A court decision supplied by the ministries after submissions closed was unnecessary to her reasoning, so she did not seek another response from Cimolai. Apart from examples concerning the outstanding files, she did not rely on the historical examples appended to the inquiry notice. Her focus was his conduct and submissions in this proceeding, considered against his OIPC history.

The finding concerned conduct and resource use

O’Connor identified six connected problems: unsupported or unrelated allegations, failure to meaningfully address his own conduct, repetition of rejected arguments, excessive irrelevant or redundant material, personal attacks, and failure to follow instructions. Taken together, she found, they showed that Cimolai was not using OIPC processes to resolve the access and privacy disputes before it.

Cimolai attributed the workload to public bodies’ withholding, delays and handling of requests. He argued that disclosure of information properly owed to him would have avoided much of the activity, and that splitting requests into multiple files inflated the apparent volume. O’Connor found that these responses did not meaningfully address how his own conduct affected others.

She distinguished unsupported claims of misconduct from ordinary findings that a public body had failed to comply with an access obligation. Earlier orders requiring disclosure or better searches did not establish present wrongdoing in this proceeding. She also recognized that improper conduct by a public body could sometimes weigh against an abuse finding, but found the allegations here unsupported or irrelevant.

The submission findings went beyond sheer length. O’Connor found that hundreds of pages repeated old grievances or added irrelevant arguments, increasing the work required of the office and the other parties. She also found repeated failures to comply with delivery and conduct instructions despite Cimolai’s extensive inquiry experience. Allowing the seven outstanding files to continue would perpetuate the abuse, she concluded, and none presented exceptional circumstances warranting continuation.

Permission is required for new OIPC proceedings

The operative order closes all seven identified files and their associated adjudication files. Before initiating any new complaint or request for review under either statute, Cimolai must obtain OIPC permission by emailing a request of no more than one page, including attachments, explaining the issue and why the office should consider it.

Unless the OIPC permits otherwise, he may have only one open proceeding at a time. Conduct similar to the abuse found in this order will result in permission being denied or an existing proceeding being cancelled, with related files closed.

The order separately streamlines applications under section 43 of FIPPA or section 37 of PIPA to disregard his requests. A public body or organization may apply in writing by stating that it seeks authorization under this order. Cimolai must then have an opportunity to respond, followed by an opportunity for the applicant body or organization to reply.

In those future applications, Cimolai bears the burden of proving that his request is not an abuse of process and should not be disregarded. That prospective burden is distinct from the absence of a formal burden in the commissioner-initiated inquiry decided here. Authorization to disregard a request still requires an OIPC determination; the order does not automatically exempt recipients from answering every request he makes.

UBC had sought broader relief, including five-year bans on new access requests to the university and new OIPC proceedings. O’Connor did not impose those bans. The permission requirement governs complaints and reviews at the OIPC, while the separate application process addresses requests made to public bodies and organizations.