Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 59 Subsection 7(3) Response required 7(3) A notice given pursuant to subsection (2) is to state that the applicant may request a review by the commissioner within one year after the notice is given. All responses provided to applicants pursuant to subsection 7(2) of FOIP must include a statement that advises applicants of their right to request a review by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Generally, this statement can appear as follows: If you would like to exercise your right to request a review of this decision, you may do so by completing a “Request for Review” form and forwarding it to the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner within one year of this notice. Your completed form can be sent to #503 – 1801 Hamilton Street, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4P 4B4 or be submitted via email to intake@oipc.sk.ca. This form is available at the same location where you applied for access or by contacting the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner at (306) 787-8350. Subsection 7(4) Response required 7(4) If an application is made with respect to a record that is exempt from access pursuant to section 15, 16, 21 or 22 or subsection 29(1), the head may refuse to confirm or deny that the record exists or ever did exist. Subsection 7(4) of FOIP provides that where a government institution intends to respond to an applicant citing subsection 7(2)(f) of FOIP, it can only do so for records that would be exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections 15, 16, 21, or 22 or subsection 29(1) of FOIP. By invoking subsection 7(4) of FOIP, a government institution is denying an applicant the right to know whether a record exists. This subsection provides government institutions with a significant discretionary power that should be exercised only in rare cases. It is the Commissioner’s view that this provision is meant to protect highly sensitive records where confirming or denying the mere existence of a record would in itself impose significant risk. For example, the risk of harm to witnesses as a result of revealing a law enforcement
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==