Hamer-Jackson ordered to obtain written permission before sharing staff information

Reid Hamer-Jackson was ordered to obtain written permission before disclosing personal information about current or former municipal staff after British Columbia’s privacy commissioner found that he unlawfully shared sensitive information while serving as Kamloops’ mayor. In Order F26-87, 2026 BCIPC 111, issued October 9, 2026, investigator Ryan Graves also directed him to comply with the City’s instructions to contain the breach.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia reached a different conclusion about the City’s response. It found Kamloops had taken reasonable protective measures and, after correcting a notification omission on October 1, had met its statutory notification obligations. That finding did not mean every copy of the disclosed information had been recovered or deleted.

An attempt to counter a public narrative

The investigation concerned an August 27 email with a 66-page attachment of text messages between Hamer-Jackson and a former employee. The messages contained personal information about four people, including sensitive health and employment information. The email was addressed to the City’s external legal counsel and three members of the public whom Hamer-Jackson described as commentators on local affairs.

One public recipient’s email was undeliverable, and the City later confirmed that person had not received it. The external lawyer alerted the City’s privacy department. Kamloops reported the breach to the commissioner on September 3.

Hamer-Jackson told the investigator he wanted to rebut a public narrative about his relationship with the former employee. He said the messages supported his denial that he had threatened to fire the employee and his account of why the employment ended. Graves considered that explanation but found no legal authority for the disclosure.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act restricts disclosures by public-body officers, a category that includes elected municipal officials. Section 25.1 prohibits them from disclosing personal information except as the legislation authorizes. Graves examined the potentially relevant permissions even though Hamer-Jackson did not identify a specific provision authorizing his email.

Requestable records are not automatically releasable

Graves rejected the suggestion that information obtainable through a freedom-of-information request could therefore be shared at the mayor’s discretion. The statutory access process includes mandatory privacy protections, and disclosure decisions belong to the public body’s designated head or an authorized delegate. Hamer-Jackson was neither the delegated decision-maker nor responding to an access request.

There was also no evidence that any affected person had consented in the legally required manner. Nor was the email a disclosure for the original purpose of collecting the information, or a legally consistent purpose. Sending the messages to local commentators to advance Hamer-Jackson’s position in a public dispute lacked the necessary connection to the original collection and was not something the affected individuals would reasonably expect, Graves found.

The investigator therefore concluded that the August 27 disclosure contravened section 25.1. The finding concerned unauthorized disclosure, not an allegation that Hamer-Jackson had improperly accessed or retained the information on his phone.

Reasonable response did not mean complete containment

The City’s response was assessed through containment, risk assessment, notification and prevention. About five hours after the email was sent, Kamloops asked two recipients to delete all copies, including material in deleted folders and any hard copies, and confirm they had done so.

One confirmed compliance. The other acknowledged the message but did not confirm deletion, then failed to respond to a formal demand notice. The City also directed Hamer-Jackson to stop unauthorized disclosures, take reasonable steps to recall, retrieve, delete or secure copies, identify recipients and confirm his actions in writing. He acknowledged to Graves that he had not responded to that letter.

Graves found the City’s containment efforts reasonable despite their mixed success. He also accepted its assessment that the disclosure risked harm to reputation, relationships and employment or professional opportunities. Sending the information to people viewed as public commentators increased the foreseeable risk of wider distribution.

Kamloops notified three affected people on September 3. It could not find reliable contact information for the fourth despite reasonable efforts. Graves accepted the seven-day interval before notification as reasonable in the circumstances, including the time allowed for recipients to respond to containment requests.

The initial letters nevertheless omitted a required detail: when the City discovered the breach. Kamloops supplied that date in an October 1 follow-up. Graves expressly relied on that correction in finding that the City had complied with its notification obligations.

Binding directions after earlier warnings

The reasons recount repeated privacy training opportunities and written warnings. Some of the same sensitive information had been disclosed in March, after which both the City and the commissioner explained the limits on further disclosure. Graves concluded that another recommendation or voluntary remedy would be inadequate.

He noted that Kamloops had reported privacy breaches by Hamer-Jackson on at least 35 occasions. That figure described reports to the commissioner, not 35 adjudicated contraventions in this order. Against the history of warnings, Graves characterized the conduct as “willful ignorance or deliberate disregard” of the statutory duty.

The order requires Hamer-Jackson to comply with his duty not to disclose personal information obtained as a City officer except as authorized by the Act. It specifically requires written permission from the public body’s head or delegate before disclosing any personal information about current or former municipal staff.

A second direction required compliance with the City’s August 27 containment instructions, including written confirmation of the steps taken, by the end of October 13, 2026. The commissioner reserved the right to file the order with the B.C. Supreme Court if it was not obeyed. The order did not impose a fine, remove anyone from office or record a criminal conviction.

In a separate later development, the City’s October 21 official election declaration declared Mike O’Reilly elected mayor.