The Township of Langley must disclose a memorandum and spreadsheet about a lease dispute after failing to establish that releasing them would reveal closed-council deliberations. In Order F26-89, 2026 BCIPC 114, dated October 22, 2026, adjudicator Carol Pakkala of B.C.’s Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld other withholding claims but ordered those two documents released to the applicant by December 4.
A separate table containing extracts from closed-council minutes received a different remedy. Although Pakkala rejected the township’s legal-advice and litigation-privilege claims over it, she did not order it released to the applicant. Langley must produce it to her by November 5 so she can decide whether the protection for local public body confidences applies.
The applicant, who is not named in the reasons, owns a business that leases municipal property. A dispute over the lease arose in 2019 and remained unresolved at the time of the inquiry. The access proceeding concerned withheld information, not who was right about the lease.
Closed meetings do not protect every briefing document
Under section 12(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a local public body may withhold information that would reveal the substance of deliberations at a lawfully closed meeting. It must establish authority to exclude the public, that the meeting was actually closed, and that disclosure would reveal those deliberations.
Pakkala accepted that council had legal authority under the Community Charter to close the June and October meetings to discuss litigation or potential litigation, and that the public was excluded. The township’s difficulty was the third requirement. Background material is not protected simply because it concerns the meeting’s subject: disclosure must reveal what was discussed or decided, directly or through accurate inferences.
The spreadsheet listed expenses for which the applicant sought reimbursement, with colour coding reflecting the township’s interpretation of which expenses were eligible under the lease. The staff memorandum described the dispute’s background, analyzed issues and set out options for resolving it. Pakkala found the memorandum objectively written and containing no legal advice.
The township argued that the records described information received and discussed at the meetings, directly revealed deliberations or allowed accurate inferences about them. But the evidence established distribution to council, not whether or how council considered the documents. Neither showed what members said, whether they debated or accepted options, whether a vote occurred or how anyone voted. Pakkala concluded that releasing the documents would not reveal the meetings’ deliberations.
Legal advice remained protected
The township also relied on section 14, which protects solicitor-client privilege, for emails, attachments and the minutes table. The applicant challenged that claim as overbroad, arguing that the municipality was shielding administrative policy rather than legitimate legal advice and should separate advice from factual or administrative discussions.
Pakkala rejected that characterization for the emails and attachments. She found communications between the township and its external law firm, or among staff about the firm’s advice, that were intended to remain confidential. Legal-advice privilege can extend to connected internal communications, not just the lawyer’s final opinion. Even staff emails about an intention to seek advice were protected here because the evidence established that advice on the matter was actually sought and received.
She assessed that privilege claim without requiring production of the unredacted records. Detailed affidavits from the municipal clerk and records supervisor, together with the visible portions of the records, supplied enough information about their purpose, context and participants. Both officials had direct knowledge; evidence from a lawyer was not an absolute requirement. Pakkala upheld privilege for all the emails and attachments withheld on that basis.
The minutes table needs a further assessment
The minutes table did not meet the same test. The clerk said it did not reveal legal advice but suggested that advice could be inferred from councillors’ motions. Pakkala was not persuaded: councillors could advance their own views about legal matters, and the evidence did not establish that the motions were based on advice. Information relating to a legal issue is not necessarily a privileged lawyer-client communication.
The township’s alternative litigation-privilege claim also failed. Pakkala was not satisfied that litigation was ongoing or reasonably anticipated when the minutes were recorded, or that preparing for litigation was their dominant purpose. Creating a record in the context of a dispute was not enough. Because Langley also claimed the closed-meeting exception for the table, however, she required it for a line-by-line assessment rather than ordering its disclosure.
Internal strategy advice also stayed withheld
Pakkala separately upheld section 13(1) withholding for a small amount of duplicated information in internal staff emails. It revealed advice about courses of action and recommendations on strategy for a meeting with the applicant, or allowed those recommendations to be inferred. None of the statutory exceptions applied, and the records had not been in existence for 10 years.
The December 4 disclosure obligation covers the memorandum and spreadsheet. Langley must also send the OIPC’s Registrar of Inquiries its cover letter and the information disclosed. The November 5 production deadline for the minutes table serves the adjudicator’s further review; it is not an order to make that table public.
