Updated (Again) - Exclusive! City in Violation of Five OIPC Orders
***** Update - The City has provided a comment, see the bottom of the article.*****
Medicine Hat's "Weaponized Incompetence" on Transparency
MEDICINE HAT, AB - On Dec 2 2025, the OIPC issued 5 orders to the City of Medicine Hat.
In five separate rulings on December 2, 2025, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) found the city violated access-to-information law.
The city had claimed certain requests were "complete." The OIPC found no evidence any response was ever sent. One was unilaterally deemed "informal"; others were met with excuses like "corrupted files."
The city was given 50 days to finally comply with these binding orders. That deadline has now passed, today is day 57.
At the Jan 13 2026 Administrative and Legislative review and Government Relations Committee (ALRGRC), we heard administration admit that its transparency system is broken. Staff outlined a reality of lost records and neglected training.
The question now isn't just whether the city failed, but how. A two-year pattern suggests this may be more than bureaucratic bungling; it bears the hallmarks of "weaponized incompetence," where systemic failure becomes a strategic tool to exhaust, delay, and deny the public's right to know.
The Owl has obtained documents that provide evidence of past FOIP failures including the improper disclosure of private names and the release of confidential documents.
A Pattern of "How Dare You Ask That?"
The resident in question is Nicole Frey, who has spent over two years being treated like a nuisance by city administration for the apparent crime of asking for public records about spending, contracts, and workplace complaints.
The city's strategy to manage her inquiries has been heavy on obstruction:
Ignore the requests for hundreds of days.
Tell the court the requests were "complete," a claim the OIPC later found had no evidence.
Try to get her rights canceled. In 2024 alone, the city filed four separate Requests to Disregard with the Privacy Commissioner, wanting permission to just throw Frey's (and others') FOIP requests in the trash.
That last tactic went over like a lead balloon. The Commissioner, clearly tired of the city's homework excuses, dismissed all four attempts. In the final rejection, the Commissioner delivered a deliciously blunt burn, noting
“As a final note, this is the fourth application the Public Body has brought to me this year requesting authorization to disregard access requests (resulting in three decisions: F2024- RTD-03, F2024-RTD-05, and this decision). I have dismissed all of these applications on the basis that the Public Body did not provide sufficient evidence to meet its burden. These decisions should provide guidance to the Public Body as to the evidence required for these types of cases and I encourage the Public Body to ensure it has evidence to support its application before it considers bringing another one in the future.” Source - Request To Disregard F2024-RTD-06
🔥 The Spark: A Surge of Distrust
This has a clear origin. We heard at a recent committee meeting that public trust collapsed after the outcry over soaring power prices in 2023 - explanations from the city at that time were "highly criticized". Citizens turned to the Freedom of Information (FOIP) process.
Requests exploded from "a handful" per year pre-2023 to about 80 in 2025 alone.
In 2024 after hearing about the increased FOIP requests and how hard it was for staff to keep up, Mayor Linnsie Clark pushed for "proactive disclosure," publishing FOIPable information online to make formal requests unnecessary. Former City Manager, Ann Mitchell, resisted saying -
The city’s computer system was inadequate to the task,
Not enough staff,
Privacy issues, etc.
🧱 The Weapon: A System Designed to Fail
Not Enough Training, No Tracking: Staff admitted on Jan 13 2026 they could not provide a "definitive number" of employees who had completed mandatory, free online privacy training. There are no key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure how well the system works. Records are often "hard to locate."
A Culture of Contempt: This operational dysfunction was fueled by a toxic culture of disrespect for accountability. Mitchell, fired in late 2025, admitted to withholding information from the elected Council for fear that information would be leaked.
Behind closed doors and in front of a direct subordinate, Mitchell used profane and derogatory slurs to refer to councillors who were critical of her, later defending the language on the basis she hadn't said it to their faces.It was not just the city manager who was disrespectful of residents.
At a 2023 committee meeting a councillor was caught on tape saying in reference to Nicole Frey “What is her problem anyway?”.
The Owl has a copy of an email chain where city staff were wishing a certain resident would be sued. Other e-mails were disparaging of city residents; there were several residents represented in these emails. Some emails were actually sent outside the organization which calls into question the training on the proper use of official communication channels.
🔄 A New Council - Will They Make Things Right?
This is where the story pivots. A new City Council is now facing the mess.
The January 13 2026 ALRGRC meeting was a start. Records and Information Management Coordinator Genesta Amiro told the committee that the city is now required by legislation to train every employee on the Access To Information and Protection of Privacy (ATIPP) Act. They are now building a functional records system, and developing a strong, third-party whistleblower policy that, for the first time, will allow the public to safely report wrongdoing. This was promised by the previous council but never got to the finish line.
Sometimes, change can be swift. After that Jan 13 committee meeting, Councillor Stuart Young was made aware by The Owl that these vital public meetings were not being archived on the city's YouTube channel, leaving citizens in the dark if they missed the live stream. City administration at that meeting said they had been discussing various ways of how to get it done. (For years, this service had been provided only by Owl News at its own expense.)
On Jan 19, less than a week later, Councillor Young announced the problem was fixed: the meetings would now be uploaded to the City YouTube channel for all to watch at their convenience. It was a small but symbolic victory - proof that when the elected council is informed and acts, long-standing barriers to transparency can fall overnight.
The larger test remains. Will this new council have the fortitude to force the administration to obey the law, comply with the OIPC, and finally dismantle the system of "weaponized incompetence" that has cost the public its trust?
Update
The Owl has verified the OIPC email sent to Frey stating that they had not received written notification that the City had complied with the order; Frey received 5 such emails.
The Owl left a message with the City Clerk’s office requesting a comment as they are responsible for processing FOIP (and now ATIA) requests. We received the following response from Genesta Amiro, Coordinator – Records and Information Management.
“As directed by the OIPC we'll be responding next week at the latest.” When the Owl responded why the deadline was missed, Ms Amiro replied “We did not meet the deadline primarily because we calculated business days and excluded holidays per the new ATIA legislation.” (Bolding by Ms Amiro.)
However, the orders say
“[para 36] I make this Order under section 72 of the Act.
[para 37] I order the Public Body to respond to the Applicant’s access request in accordance with the Public Body’s remaining obligations under the FOIP Act.
[para 38] I further order the Public Body to notify me in writing not later than 50 days after being given a copy of this Order, that it has complied with the Order.”
Indeed, the OIPC website says
What law applies to an access to information request made before the repeal of the FOIP Act?
The FOIP Act applies.
What law applies to a review, inquiry or investigation, if the matter, decision, disclosure, act or failure to act that is the subject of the review, inquiry or investigation occurred before the repeal of the FOIP Act?
The FOIP Act applies.
What law applies to an offence committed under the FOIP Act before the repeal of the FOIP Act?
The FOIP Act applies, except that the prosecution of the offence may be commenced in accordance with ATIA or POPA, as applicable.
