Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 101 Advice includes the views or opinions of a public servant as to the range of policy options to be considered by the decision maker even if they do not include a specific recommendation on which option to take.363 Advice has a broader meaning than recommendations.364 The legislative intention was for advice to have a distinct meaning from recommendations. Otherwise, it would be redundant.365 While “recommendation” is an express suggestion, “advice” is simply an implied recommendation.366 A recommendation is a specific piece of advice about what to do, especially when given officially; a suggestion that someone should choose a particular thing or person that one thinks particularly good or meritorious.367 Recommendations relate to a suggested course of action more explicitly and pointedly than “advice”.368 It can include material that relates to a suggested course of action that will ultimately be accepted or rejected by the person being advised.369 It includes suggestions for a course of action as well as the rationale or substance for a suggested course of action.370 A recommendation, whether express or inferable, is still a recommendation.371 363 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [26] and [47]. Relied on in ON IPC Order PO-3799 at [29]. It should be noted that this is based on Ontario’s FOIP subsection 13(1), which does not include “policy options” in its wording. Saskatchewan’s FOIP includes ‘policy options’ in its wording as a separate type of information. 364 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [22] and [24]. Relied on by Justice Danyliuk in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [77]. 365 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [24]. Relied on by Justice Danyliuk in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [77]. 366 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [22]. Relied on by Justice Danyliuk in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [77] and Justice Gabrielson in Hande v University of Saskatchewan, QBG 1222 of 2018 at [41]. 367 Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at p. 1526. 368 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [22]. Relied on by Justice Danyliuk in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [77] and Justice Gabrielson in Hande v University of Saskatchewan, QBG 1222 of 2018 at [41]. 369 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [23]. Relied on by Justice Danyliuk in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [77] and Justice Gabrielson in Hande v University of Saskatchewan, QBG 1222 of 2018 at [41]. 370 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at pp. 166 and 179. The SK OIPC relied on this definition for the first time in Review Report LA-2010-001 at [28]. Also relied on in SK OIPC Review Report F-2014-001 at [282]. The term “substance” was added to the definition following SK IPC Review Report 019-2017 at [21]. 371 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [24]. Relied on by Justice Danyliuk in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [77] and Justice Gabrielson in Hande v University of Saskatchewan, QBG 1222 of 2018 at [41].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==