The following is the most recent document that I received from the Office of Information Commissioner (OIC).

Needless to say, I found it rather disturbing and discussed the matter with the gentleman that is handling my case.  I posted his email below the document.

This refers to our recent e-mail exchange and to our telephone conversation of January 3, 2018. 

On June 6, 2016, you requested from the RCMP, a copy of: “…the report written on St.Elias Mines / Lori McClenahan, authored by the Surrey RCMP approximately 3 years ago…”  To further assist the RCMP, you provided the name and contact information of the RCMP investigator associated with the report, and later you organized and/or provided written consent from a number of individuals.

In response to your request, a copy of the Project E-PREDATED Final Report, prepared by RCMP Constable Andrew Watts and dated December 1, 2014, was processed and a partial release was provided to you by way of a letter dated March 31, 2017.  The institution claimed that all of the information was subject to subparagraph 16(1)(a)(i) of the Access to Information Act (the Act), but it exercised discretion and released some of the requested information to you.

On March 31, 2017, you were advised by Carmen Garrett of the OIC about the outcome of your complaint concerning the time extension taken by the institution, as well as delay (deemed refusal) and the institution’s obligations with respect to the duty to assist. For reasons expressed in that letter, the extension of time taken by the institution was found not valid and your complaint about delay was recorded as “well founded, resolved.”

The comments in this e-mail concern your on-going complaint about the refusal of the institution to exercise additional discretion and release additional information found within the report.  Your complaint about the application of the exemption was received by the OIC on May 10, 2017.  The report was prepared in the course of a lawful investigation by the RCMP, pertaining to the detection, prevention or suppression of crime, and is subject to the application of subparagraph 16(10(a)(i) of the Act. That provision of the Act applies to a class of records but requires the institution that is a named investigative body to exercise discretion and release information that would not harm their investigative interests.  

Throughout the investigation of the complaint, you have made the OIC aware of information that is already in the public domain, as well as correspondence and information you have obtained from the BC Securities Commission, which is the independent provincial agency responsible for regulating trading in securities in British Columbia.

For our review, we obtained a complete copy of the 138 page report as well as the associated processing file from the institution.  As a result of our interventions, the institution has exercised discretion and released additional information to you on November 2, 2017, and on December 29, 2017.

Today, we spoke about the information you have received from the institution.  You have noted some surprise that the information made available to you did not result in criminal charges being preferred, or additional civil or regulatory action being taken by the BC Securities Commission.  We discussed that while the report is titled: Project E-PREDATED Final Report, that within pages 9 to 11, the information provided to you suggests (at the time the report was written) the investigators did not obtain enough evidence to prefer charges as the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” and that a “substantial likelihood of conviction” were not met.  

Within the context of my present duties, I do not have a view on whether or not charges could have been preferred or concerning what additional information would be required to enable criminal charges to be preferred.  My role is to investigate the application of the exemptions found in the Act and to determine if the exemptions have been reasonably applied to the records that are responsive to your request.  Within that context, I am pleased that our efforts have resulted in additional information being provided to you by the institution. 

In terms of additional information that could be released to you, I am of the view that given the relative age of the report (i.e.: it is recent enough that if additional evidentiary information was brought forward, the institution may wish to review their findings); balanced by the nature of relevant information that is within the public domain -- that the likelihood of additional information being released at the present time, is very low.  Effectively, I am satisfied that the exemption is now reasonably applied by the institution.

As our interventions resulted in the release of additional information to you, I will recommend that the complaint be recorded as “well-founded, resolved.” This reflects that during the course of the investigation, the institution considered their discretion and released additional information that would not harm their investigative interests.  However, before I draft and send my report to senior management for approval, I am seeking your final representations.  If you have final representations you wish to make, please do so before January 24, 2018.

I wish to thank you for your active engagement in this file as our investigation proceeded.  It has been a pleasure working with you.