Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 146 IPC Findings In Review Report 012-2018, the Commissioner considered whether a request for review had been received from the third party within the legislated 20-day deadline. The third party had said it missed the 20-day deadline because it was confused about how to request a review. The Commissioner found that the City of Regina (City) met its duty to assist when it informed the third party of its right to request a review and how the third party could request one. The Commissioner further found that the third party did not request the review within the legislated timeline of 20 days after receiving the City’s notice that it intended to release information. The Commissioner recommended that the City provide the applicant with the records. SECTION 50: REVIEW OR REFUSAL TO REVIEW Review or refusal to review 50(1) Where the commissioner is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to review any matter set out in an application pursuant to section 49, the commissioner shall review the matter. (2) The commissioner may refuse to conduct a review or may discontinue a review if, in the opinion of the commissioner, the application for review: (a) is frivolous or vexatious; (a.1) does not affect the applicant or individual personally; (a.2) has not moved forward as the applicant or individual has failed to respond to the requests of the commissioner; (a.3) concerns a government institution that has an internal review process that has not been used; (a.4) concerns a professional who is governed by a professional body that regulates its members pursuant to an Act, and a complaints procedure available through the professional body has not been used; (a.5) may be considered pursuant to another Act that provides a review or other mechanism to challenge a government institution’s decision with respect to the collection, amendment, use or disclosure of personal information and that review or mechanism has not been used; (a.6) does not contain sufficient evidence;
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==