WHAT: BCCLA to intervene in Vabuolas v. Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia to urge Supreme Court of Canada to defend Charter rights
WHEN: October 9, 2026 at 6:30 PDT / 9:30 EDT
WHERE: Supreme Court of Canada
Ottawa, ON / unceded Anishinabe Algonquin Territory — The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) will present oral arguments as an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada in Vabuolas v. Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia. This case deals with balancing an individual’s right to access personal information held by religious institutions with the freedom of religion of those institutions.
Gabriel-Liberty Wall and Gregory Westgarde, two former Jehovah’s Witnesses, filed freedom of information requests to access their personal information held by their respective former congregations. The congregations denied these requests. An adjudicator from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) ordered that the information be disclosed to the OIPC in order to determine whether it could be withheld from Mr. Wall and Mr. Westgarde. The congregations challenged the order via petition, claiming that sharing this information with the OIPC violates their freedom of religion.
The petition judge found that the legislation — the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) — requiring the disclosure does breach the right to freedom of religion under section 2 of the Charter but was justified under section 1 using the Oakes test — a legal framework that allows courts to determine if a law that infringes on Charter rights can be legally justified. The BC Court of Appeal found that it was not the legislation, but rather the OIPC’s discretionary decision to order the disclosure that raised Charter issues. This time applying the more deferential Doré/Loyola framework for administrative decisions, the Court upheld the petition judge’s decision again because it properly balanced Charter values.
BCCLA is intervening in this case to argue that the distinction between Charter rights and Charter values in administrative law has become confusing and unhelpful. We urge the Supreme Court to provide clarity on this issue. Where Charter rights are at stake, the analysis should focus on those rights and administrative orders, like the one issued by the OIPC, should be reviewed more closely. The correctness standard of review should apply, and the Oakes test should be used to justify any infringement. This more stringent standard is necessary to ensure that Charter rights are respected, no matter the context.