Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 41 not made in good faith pursuant to subsections 43.1(2)(a), (b) and (c) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). While considering this application, the Commissioner noted that Holy Family appeared to confuse “clarifying” with “narrowing” and appeared to be forcing the applicant to narrow their access to information requests inappropriately. Holy Family had responded to the applicant’s access to information requests indicating that “the scope of your request remains too large to identify specific records” and requested the applicant narrow the scope. The Commissioner found Holy Family wanted the applicant to narrow the access to information requests because they involved a large volume of records over a two-year period requiring a significant amount of work not because it could not identify records. When its attempts to narrow the access to information requests were unsuccessful, Holy Family should have proceeded to issue an estimate of fees associated with the broad requests. It failed to do so. Rather, it made an application to the Commissioner to have the access to information requests disregarded. Furthermore, the Commissioner found that the access to information requests were described with sufficient particularity by the applicant and Holy Family should have been able to identify the records responsive to the requests. In conclusion, the Commissioner refused Holy Family’s application to disregard the applicant’s access to information requests. In Review Report 160-2020, the Commissioner reviewed a fee estimate issued to an applicant by the Ministry of Government Relations (Government Relations). Upon review, the Commissioner found that Government Relations did not invoke subsection 6(3) of FOIP appropriately because it attempted to require the applicant to “narrow” their access to information request and that if it did not hear back from the applicant by a certain date, it would consider the access to information request abandoned pursuant to subsection 7.1(1) of FOIP. The Commissioner found that the access to information request, although broad, was clear in terms of what was being sought. The Commissioner recommended that Government Relations develop policy and procedures that highlight the difference between clarifying and narrowing the scope of an access to information request. Furthermore, the Commissioner recommended Government Relations rescind its fee estimate. In Review Report 127-2018, the Commissioner reviewed the response of the University of Saskatchewan (U of S) to an access to information request. The U of S had responded to an applicant’s access to information request indicating that further clarification was required to identify records pursuant to subsection 6(3) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The applicant requested a review by the Commissioner. Upon notice of the review, the U of S raised concerns that the request for review by the applicant was frivolous and vexatious. The Commissioner found that there was jurisdiction to conduct the review and that the request for review was not frivolous or vexatious. Furthermore, the Commissioner found that “clarification” pursuant to section 6 of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==