Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 106 • Were a large number of consultations required. • Availability of third party and public body contacts. • Did the government institution set deadline expectations. • Is time required for consultation reasonable. • Did the government institution follow up on consultation requests. • Has the government institution proceeded with a phased release.162 IPC Findings In Review Report 261-2016 & 284-2016, the Commissioner found that an extension applied by the Ministry of Central Services at the same time of a fee estimate was not necessary and not in keeping with FOIP because the clock stopped when the fee estimate was issued. In Review Report F-2006-003, the Commissioner considered whether the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General (Justice) appropriately applied an extension pursuant to subsections 12(1)(a)(i) and 12(1)(b) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that extending the response deadline for purposes of consultations was not appropriate. In arriving at this finding, the Commissioner noted that Justice did not provide sufficient explanation of the nature or complexity of the consultations. Furthermore, when considering why the consultations could not be completed within the original 30-day deadline, the Commissioner found that Justice did not offer any evidence that it sent additional reminders to the public bodies it had consulted to ensure that it would be in a position to respond to the applicant within the original 30-day deadline. The Commissioner also was not satisfied that Justice initiated and oversaw the consultations in a timely manner. In addition, the Commissioner found that many of the activities undertaken by Justice in preparation of its response did not constitute consultations under the provision. In Review Report 322-2021, 030-2022, the Commissioner found that the Ministry of Health (Health) failed to provide the section 7 decision letter to the applicant within the period of extension. As such, the Commissioner found that Health was not in compliance with subsection 12(3) of FOIP and as a result, the Commissioner did not need to consider whether Health was in compliance with subsections 12(1) or 12(2) of FOIP. In Review Report 164-2021, the Commissioner found that the Ministry of Corrections, Policing and Public Safety (Corrections) failed to provide the section 7 decision letter to the applicant within the period of extension. As such, the Commissioner found that Corrections was not in compliance with section 12(3) of FOIP and as such the Commissioner did not need to consider whether Corrections had complied with subsections 12(1) or 12(2) of FOIP. The 162 BC IPC, Resource, Time Extension Guidelines for Public Bodies, at p. 8.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==