Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 1, Purposes and Scope of FOIP. Updated 7 March 2023 35 replace the applicant’s right to request access to records in the possession or control of the University of Saskatchewan. The Commissioner did not dismiss the request for review. In Review Report 150-2014, the Commissioner considered the equivalent subsection 4(a) in The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner noted that the City of Saskatoon was correct that there were processes through the court to gain access to records, however the process of accessing records in a court proceeding was independent of LA FOIP. Further, the Commissioner determined that subsection 4(a) of LA FOIP provided that LA FOIP complemented and did not replace existing procedures for obtaining access to information. In Investigation Report LA-2012-001, the Commissioner considered a privacy complaint involving the publishing of employee salaries by the City of Moose Jaw in its annual public accounts. The City invoked the equivalent subsections 4(a), (b) and (e) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) for authority to publish the employee’s salaries. The Commissioner determined that to successfully invoke subsections 4(a), (b), or (e) of LA FOIP, the City would have needed to show that the salary information of the employees had routinely been publicly available prior to the enactment of LA FOIP in 1993. As the City had not demonstrated this, the Commissioner found that subsections 4(a), (b) and (e) of LA FOIP would not apply. In Investigation Report LA-2005-003, the Commissioner considered a privacy complaint involving an individual who had applied to the City of Saskatoon for a building permit. The individual learned that personal information from the permit application form appeared to have been sold to contractors and suppliers. In support of this practice, the City invoked the equivalent subsections 4(a) and (d) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The City asserted that the personal information had been available for purchase via a Bylaw prior to LA FOIP coming into force on July 1, 1993. The Commissioner found that based on the material provided by the City that personal information disclosed by means of an external weekly building permit report was part of a practice of disclosure that existed prior to the proclamation of LA FOIP. As such, the Commissioner found that the City properly invoked subsections 4(a) and (b) of LA FOIP.