Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 127 (A) developing methods of testing; or (B) testing products for possible purchase; (d) is a statistical survey; (e) is the result of background research of a scientific or technical nature undertaken in connection with the formulation of a policy proposal; or (f) is: (i) an instruction or guide-line issued to the officers or employees of a government institution; or (ii) a substantive rule or statement of policy that has been adopted by a government institution for the purpose of interpreting an Act or regulation or administering a program or activity of a government institution. (3) A head may refuse to give access to any report, statement, memorandum, recommendation, document, information, data or record, within the meaning of section 10 of The Evidence Act, that, pursuant to that section, is not admissible as evidence in any legal proceeding. Section 17 of FOIP is a discretionary class-based provision. It is intended to allow for candor during the decision-making process. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the purpose of the equivalent provision in Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31, s. 13(1) in John Doe v Ontario (Finance), 2014 SCC 36: [43] The purpose of this provision is to preserve an effective and neutral public service so as to permit public servants to provide full, free and frank advice… Failing to exempt such material risks having advice or recommendations that are less candid and complete, and the public service no longer being perceived as neutral… [44] In my opinion, Evens J. (as he then was) in Canada Council of Christian Charities v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 1999 CanLII 8293 (FC), [1999] 4 F.C. 245, persuasively explained the rationale for the exemption for advice given by public servants. Although written about the equivalent federal exemption, the purpose and function of the federal and Ontario advice and recommendations exemptions are the same. I cannot improve upon the language of Evans J. and his explanation and I adopt them as my own: To permit or to require the disclosure of advice given by officials, either to other officials or to ministers, and the disclosure of confidential deliberations within the public service on policy options, would erode government’s ability to formulate and to justify its policies.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==