Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 2, Administration of FOIP. Updated 7 March 2023. 46 intimate knowledge of the circumstances surrounding a breach. The burden of proof is assessed on a balance of probabilities.78 Fees: FOIP does not define burden of proof in a review of a fee estimate. However, having regard for the purpose of the Act and the practice in other Canadian jurisdictions, the head of the government institution should also bear the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the fee under the Act.79 Transfers: FOIP does not define burden of proof in a review of a transfer of an access request (section 11). However, the government institution that transfers the request is in the best position to explain why it transferred it.80 Extensions: FOIP does not define burden of proof in a review involving an extension of time (section 12). However, the burden of proof of establishing an appropriate basis to extend the time to respond to an applicant under FOIP should be borne by the government institution.81 Corrections: FOIP does not define burden of proof in a review of a request for correction (section 32). However, the applicant has the initial burden to establish that there are errors or omissions in the personal information that are subject to correction.82 For example, where an applicant is asserting a birthdate or name is incorrect, an applicant can provide supporting documentation such as a copy of a driver’s license or birth certificate. Once an error or omission is established, the burden of proof shifts to the government institution to justify its decision to not correct the personal information. IPC Findings In Review Report F-2013-005, the Commissioner considered which party had the burden of proof in supporting the decision of the Ministry of Health (Health) to transfer two access requests to the Ministry of Justice. The Commissioner found that since Health was in the best position to explain why it transferred the requests to Justice, it bore the burden of proof. The 78 SK OIPC Investigation Report LA-2010-001 at [26]. This is also consistent with Alberta – see Service Alberta, FOIP Bulletin No. 9, Burden of Proof, November 2009 at p. 4. 79 SK OIPC Review Report F-2005-005 at [29]. This is also consistent with Alberta – see Service Alberta, FOIP Bulletin No. 9, Burden of Proof, November 2009 at p. 4. 80 SK OIPC Review Report F-2013-005 at [21]. 81 SK OIPC Review Reports F-2008-001 at [14] and F-2006-005 at [27]. 82 SK OIPC Review Report F-2014-004 at [21].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==