Airbnb successful on appeal contesting OIPC Decision to disclose hosts personal addresses

The BC Court of Appeal mostly upheld a judicial review decision ruling that host addresses and license information collected by Airbnb, shared with the City of Vancouver, constitute personal information protected under BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Court found the OIPC’s decision failed to take a contextual approach to privacy under FIPPA.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Privacy Commissioner – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure of records – Public bodies – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Unreasonableness – Appeal – Compliance with legislation

Airbnb Ireland UC v. Vancouver (City), [2024] B.C.J. No. 1801, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 25, 2024, G.J. Fitch, R.A. Skolrood and J. Winteringham JJ.A.

This appeal arose after Airbnb judicially reviewed a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of BC (the “OIPC”), which required the City of Vancouver to release certain records related to short-term rentals. Airbnb argued that this disclosure could lead to privacy invasions and potential harm to its hosts.

The origins of the case date back to 2018 when the City of Vancouver updated its short-term rental (“STR”) bylaws. To enforce these, it signed a memorandum with Airbnb to receive hosts’ licensing information, including their name, address of their STR property, business license number and email address. In 2019, a third party individual requested access to this data under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”). The City initially declined the request, citing privacy and safety concerns that fell under the public safety and law enforcement exceptions to FIPPA (s. 15 and 19) and s. 21 and 22, requiring a public body to refuse to disclose information if it could be reasonably expected to harm the business interests of a third party or contain personal information.

The OIPC overturned the City’s decision, in part, ordering the City to disclose the Airbnb hosts’ license numbers and a document listing all STR addresses and license numbers in the City, including those used by hosts as their primary residence. The OIPC reached this conclusion deciding that STR addresses were “contact information” and not “personal information” pursuant to s. 22 of FIPPA, and had to be provided to obtain a STR license in any event.

Upon judicial review, the Court disagreed with the OIPC’s interpretation of s. 22 of FIPPA, finding unreasonable the OIPC’s decision that home address information was contact information rather than personal information. The Court provided that this should have been a contextual analysis and it was overly simplistic to suggest that home address was “contact information” because it had been used as a STR (i.e. a place of business). There were significant privacy implications to this disclosure that should have been considered by the OIPC, and the Court ordered the OIPC reconsider this issue. The Court also held that the OIPC erred by failing to provide notice to the 20,000 hosts affected by the decision which was a breach of fairness.

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judicial review decision, returning the matter to the OIPC for reconsideration on the matter of interpretation of s. 22 of FIPPA. However, the Court of Appeal found that the Court on judicial review had erred by determining that notice should have been provided to Airbnb hosts given the lack of any explicit decision of the OIPC on matter of notice and lack of any supporting evidentiary record. 

This case was digested by Roshni Veerapen of Harper Grey LLP and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter. If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact her directly at [email protected].