Topic:"Information Disclosure" in M12972

Confidential documents - 12 (1) Subject to Rule 12(2), all documents filed in respect of an application shall be placed on the public record. - (2) A party may request that all or any part of the document be held in confidence by the Board...

AI summary This section outlines the procedures for handling confidential documents in regulatory proceedings. It specifies that documents filed in applications are generally placed on the public record, but parties may request confidentiality. The requesting party must justify the need for confidentiality and the potential harm from disclosure, while objections may be filed by other parties, with the Board deciding whether to grant confidentiality.

Confidential documents - 12 (1) Subject to Rule 12(2), all documents filed in respect of an application shall be placed on the public record. - (2) A party may request that all or any part of the document be held in confidence by the Board...

AI summary This section outlines the procedures for handling confidential documents in regulatory proceedings. It details the process for requesting confidentiality, the burden of proof on the requesting party, and the Board's authority to rule on such requests, considering public interest and security concerns.

What I Am Asking the NSEB to Do I respectfully request that the NSEB: - 1. Direct NS Power to conduct an internal review of my billing account for the period covered by the dispute, using its own records, and to apply a credit of $635.22 (...

AI summary The complainant requests the NSEB to direct NS Power to review their billing account, assess the handling of their complaint, evaluate systemic issues in customer service, and address ongoing security concerns related to account information transmission following a data breach.

REDACTED Page 3 of 4 the NSEB to assess whether NS Power's continued reliance on these methods, more than a year after a confirmed breach of its own systems, meets its obligations to protect customer information and constitutes an unreason...

AI summary The complainant raises concerns about NS Power's continued use of insecure practices despite a confirmed data breach and ongoing security remediation. They also question the DRO's closure of their file based on conditional consent and request a written decision from the NSEB.

4. No Objection to an Abridged Public Version (Rule 12(4)(b)(ii)) I'm fine with my REDACTED version being made public as the abridged version of my Statement of Complaint and exhibits. That version only removes the specific items listed in...

AI summary The complainant agrees to an abridged public version of their Statement of Complaint but objects to further shortening or editing. They emphasize the need for full context and confirm that the complete version will remain on file.

3rd Floor, 1601 Lower Water Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3P6 Mailing Address PO Box 1692, Unit M Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 TEL 902-424-1332 FAX 902-424-3919 TF 1-833-809-0040 [email protected] nserbt.ca/nseb August 7, 2026 David Ni...

AI summary The Board has determined that personal identifiers such as mailing address, account number, email, phone number, and meter number do not need to be made public for the purpose of determining the complaint. These identifiers are not considered confidential under the Board's Rules of Practice, although paper records remain accessible to the public under certain conditions.

From: Sent: August 5, 2026 9:40 PM To: Wallace, Lisa Cc: Penney, Nicole Subject: Re: M12972 - NSPI Complaint - Billing Issues - David Nickerson \ \ EXTERNAL EMAIL / COURRIEL EXTERNE \ \ Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking...

AI summary The email inquires about the public accessibility of complaint documents filed with the Board, specifically asking about the meaning of 'they' and 'others' in the context of redacted and un-redacted formats, and whether personal identifiers are accessible to the general public or only authorized entities.

Good morning, The redacted documents can be accessed by anyone on our public database, as was explained to you previously. If someone were to request to view the unredacted documents (other than the parties involved in the matter), they wo...

AI summary The Board explains that redacted documents are publicly accessible, while unredacted versions require a formal request. Personal identifiers are removed for public access. No public requests for unredacted documents have been made, and disconnection information is standard across cases. Correspondence must be copied to all relevant parties.

What I need confirmed With respect, statements that no member of the public has previously requested unredacted materials, or that the Board would "entertain" or "consider" such a request if one were made, do not provide me with meaningful...

AI summary The individual is requesting a clear rule to ensure that unredacted materials are made available in the future, expressing concern that assurances based on past experience do not prevent changes to the status quo.

\ \ EXTERNAL EMAIL / COURRIEL EXTERNE \ \ Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking on links / Faites preuve de prudence si vous ouvrez une pièce jointe ou cliquez sur un lien Subject: Situation of complaint withdrawal Hi Lisa,...

AI summary The email discusses concerns regarding the legal basis for disclosing a complainant's address upon request and the need for advance notice. It also raises concerns about information handling practices, citing a recent Nova Scotia Power data breach and referencing practices of comparable tribunals.

Sources: The Social Security Tribunal of Canada's public policy on this point states: "We protect your personal information from public access. If we give someone access to your appeal record, we will first remove any information that reve...

AI summary The individual argues that the Board's decision to make their mailing address publicly accessible lacks a legal basis and conflicts with privacy practices of other Canadian tribunals. They reference decisions by the Social Security Tribunal, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal, and Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which emphasize the protection of personal information. The individual requests the Board to confirm in writing that their address will not be disclosed.

From: Wallace, Lisa Sent: August 17, 2026 8:49 AM To: ; Penney, Nicole Cc: Blake WIlliams ; Carley Freeman ; Chris Lanteigne ; Jennifer Ross ; Lisa Forsey ; Sofia Reiner ; Sonia Liao ; Kathleen Murray Subject: RE: M12972 - NSPI Complaint -...

AI summary The Board responds to questions regarding the disclosure of a complainant's address, citing the open courts principle as the legal authority. It clarifies that no advance notice is required for such disclosure.

\ \ EXTERNAL EMAIL / COURRIEL EXTERNE \ \ Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking on links / Faites preuve de prudence si vous ouvrez une pièce jointe ou cliquez sur un lien Subject: RE: Situation of complaint withdrawal — Fo...

AI summary The complainant disputes the Board's claim that their civic/mailing address can be disclosed under the open court principle, arguing that this contradicts the Board's previous Rule 12 ruling which excluded such information from public disclosure. They request clarification on the legal authority for the disclosure and whether the Board's position has changed.

Good morning, The Board has provided its responses and details of the process that will apply to your appeal, including its approach to protecting your privacy through the redaction of personal identifiers. Please let us know within 15 day...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board has provided responses and details regarding the appeal process, including privacy protections through redaction of personal identifiers. The Chief Clerk, Lisa Wallace, requests a response within 15 days.

\ \ EXTERNAL EMAIL / COURRIEL EXTERNE \ \ Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking on links / Faites preuve de prudence si vous ouvrez une pièce jointe ou cliquez sur un lien Subject: RE: Situation of complaint withdrawal — 15...

AI summary The writer is concerned that their previous letter regarding the Board's answer to question 4(b) about the open court principle has not been adequately addressed. They highlight a contradiction between the Board's own ruling on their case and a recent statement that their address is subject to disclosure under the open court principle.

From: Sent: August 19, 2026 6:02 PM To: Wallace, Lisa Cc: Penney, Nicole ; Blake WIlliams ; Carley Freeman ; Chris Lanteigne ; Jennifer Ross ; Lisa Forsey ; Sofia Reiner ; Sonia Liao ; Kathleen Murray Subject: RE: M12972 - NSPI Complaint -...

AI summary David Nickerson is confirming whether the Rule 12 ruling regarding his address remains valid and is requesting the exact issuance date of the ruling. He references the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act and the Sherman Estate v. Donovan case. He is not disputing the framework used in the ruling but seeks clarification on the specific finding related to his address.

August 24, 2026 Dear Mr. Nickerson: M12972 - NSPI Complaint - Billing Issues Thank you for your email. The Board has explained its process and stated that all personal identifiers would be redacted, with the exception of your name. The Boa...

AI summary The Board has confirmed that personal identifiers in the M12972 - NSPI Complaint - Billing Issues file will remain confidential, except for the complainant's name. An exception to the normal process has been made to address the complainant's concerns regarding privacy and access to the file.

From: Sent: August 24, 2026 5:05 PM To: Penney, Nicole Cc: Wallace, Lisa ; Blake WIlliams ; Carley Freeman ; Chris Lanteigne ; Jennifer Ross ; Kathleen Murray ; Lisa Forsey ; Sofia Reiner ; Sonia Liao Subject: Re: M12972 NSPI Complaint - B...

AI summary David Nickerson confirms his intention to proceed with his complaint (M12972) after the Board agreed to keep his personal identifiers confidential, except for his name. He inquires about the next procedural steps and whether additional documentation is required.

Friday, August 7th, 2026 at 3:06 PM Subject: Written confirmation required before I decide whether to withdraw – public access, return of documents, and website materials Hi Lisa, Regarding the Board's clarification regarding personal iden...

AI summary The individual is concerned about public access to their personal information, specifically their civic/mailing address, and is seeking written confirmation from the Board before deciding whether to withdraw their complaint.

A. If I withdraw the complaint - 1. Will the Board return all documents I filed in this matter (including cover letter, statement of complaint, exhibits, and confidentiality materials), including under Rule 12(13) or any equivalent practic...

AI summary The text outlines questions regarding the consequences of withdrawing a complaint, focusing on document return, public availability, retention by the Board, and privacy concerns related to personal information.

B. If I do not withdraw 6. Please confirm whether, while the complaint remains active, any member of the general public who attends at the Board's offices and requests the file may inspect or obtain copies of unredacted materials containin...

AI summary The text requests confirmation about public access to unredacted materials containing a complainant's civic/mailing address while a complaint is active.

C. Timing 7. Please provide these confirmations within a reasonable time so I can make an informed decision. For the record: had I been clearly informed, before I elected to proceed, that unredacted materials containing my civic/mailing ad...

AI summary The individual expresses disappointment that the Board did not clarify upfront that unredacted materials containing their civic/mailing address would be publicly accessible, leading them to reconsider their participation in the proceeding.