Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 2, Administration of FOIP. Updated 7 March 2023. 13 • Subsections 57(2) and (3) requires notice to be given to any third party that was or would have been given notice under section 34 advising them that an appeal to the Court of King’s Bench has been made by an applicant. If it is the third party that is appealing to the Court of King’s Bench, then the head must give notice to the applicant. Subsection 66(1)(c) of FOIP provides that no proceeding lies or shall be instituted against the Government of Saskatchewan, a government institution, a head or other officer or employee of a government institution if it fails to give any notice required under FOIP provided reasonable care was taken to give the notice. Subsection 66(2) of FOIP provides that reasonable care is deemed to have been taken if the notice was sent to the applicant’s address that was provided on the access to information form. IPC Findings In Review Report 110-2014, the Commissioner found that the Ministry of Health (Health) did not provide its section 7 notice within the legislated timeline. The Commissioner noted that 114 days had elapsed between when Health received the access request and when it provided its section 7 notice to the applicant. The Commissioner recommended that Health remain committed to the changes it is making to its processes by regularly evaluating whether it is achieving timelier responses and searches that are more comprehensive. Further, it should continue to make necessary changes until both are achieved. In Review Report 209-2015 to 213-2015 (five files in one report), the Commissioner found that the Ministry of Health (Health) did not respond to five access requests within the legislated timelines. The timelines were 81 to 107 days for the five access requests. The Commissioner noted that in 2015, the Commissioner issued 10 reports addressing 24 access requests to which Health had not responded within the legislated timelines. The Commissioner recommended Health change its processes so that responses to access requests go through a consistent streamlined process with no more than two or three approvers. In Review Report 311-2017, 312-2017, 313-2017, 316-2017, 340-2017, 341-2017 and 3422017 (seven files in one report), the Commissioner found that the Global Transportation Hub’s (GTH) responses to the applicant were inadequate in terms of what is required by subsections 12(3) and 7(2) of FOIP. The Commissioner also found that GTH did not provide notice to the third party pursuant to subsection 52(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==