Privacy Law Update: AirBnb not required to disclose addresses of hosts

On July 4, 2023, Justice Jasvinder Basran of the Supreme Court of the British Columbia issued a decision in Airbnb Ireland UC v Vancouver (City). The main issue before the Court was whether or not the names and addresses of Airbnb hosts could be made public, or whether that information constitued personal information.

In March 2019, a housing rights advocate (the “Requester”) sought Airbnb hosts’ names, licence numbers, and addresses, along with as information in relation to all short-term rentals (“STRs”) in Vancouver and on the Airbnb platform.    

This request was denied by the city. However, the Requester was successful is appealing to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (the “IPC”), who ruled against both the City of Vancouver and Airbnb in ordering disclosure. The IPC orderered disclosure of:

1. Licence numbers of individuals on the Airbnb platform;
2. Home addresses of all Hosts in the City; and
3. The licence numbers associated with those addresses. (the “Records”)

Airbnb sought judicial review of the decision and raised three grounds for determination:

1. The IPC’s determination that the Records are not subject to sections 15 and 19 the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was unreasonable because it misapplied these provisions by requiring Airbnb and the City to demonstrate a greater risk of harm than is legally necessary; 
2. The IPC’s determination that the Records werenot subject to s. 22 was unreasonable because it would require Airbnb hosts to disclose the address of their principal residence; and 
3. The IPC breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide Airbnb hosts with notice of the requests and an opportunity to participate in the hearing. 

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act permits a public body to refuse to disclose information where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the physical safety of a person or harm the security of property (s. 15) or threaten a person’s satefy or physical health.

Justice Basran quashed the IPC’s decision and agreed with AirBnb in respect of the second and third grounds of judicial review.

With respect to the first ground, the Court held that the IPC properly reviewed and considered the relevant evidence in respect of ss. 15 and 19 in concluding that they did not apply.

However, in adressing whether the IPC’s determination that releasing the Records would not involve disclosure of personal information was reasonable, the Court stated unequivocally: “I do not accept the [commissioner’s] rationale that by virtue of a principal residence being used as a place of business, this information loses its character as personal information.”

With respect to the third ground, the Court held that hosts ought to have been notified of the IPC’s decision. Alternatively, the commissioner’s written decision should have provided more reasons for not notifying hosts.

The Court remitted the matter back to the IPC for reconsideration, holding that proper notice must be provided to Airbnb hosts.

For a full copy of the decision, see here.