Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 128 It would be an intolerable burden to force ministers and their advisors to disclose to public scrutiny the internal evolution of the policies ultimately adopted. Disclosure of such material would often reveal that the policy-making process included false starts, blind alleys, wrong turns, changes of mind, the solicitation and rejection of advice, and the re-evaluation of priorities and the re-weighing of the relative importance of the relevant factors as a problem is studied more closely. In the hands of journalists or political opponents this is combustible material liable to fuel a fire that could quickly destroy governmental credibility and effectiveness. [paras. 30-31] [45] Political neutrality, both actual and perceived, is an essential feature of the civil service in Canada (Osborne v. Canada (Treasury Board), 1991 CanLII 60 (SCC) [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69, at p. 86; OPSEU v. Ontario (Attorney General), 1987 CanLII 71 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R., at pp. 44-45). The advice and recommendations provided by a public servant who knows that his work might one day be subject to public scrutiny is less likely to be full, free and frank, and is more likely to suffer from self-censorship. Similarly, a decision maker might hesitate to even request advice or recommendations in writing concerning a controversial matter if he knows the resulting information might be disclosed. Requiring that such advice and recommendations be disclosed risks introducing actual or perceived partisan considerations into public servants’ participation in the decision-making process. [46] Interpreting “advice” in s. 13(1) as including opinions of a public servant as to the range of alternative policy options accords with the balance struck by the legislature between the goals of preserving an effective public service capable of producing full, free and frank advice and the goal of providing a meaningful right of access.467 The British Columbia Court of Appeal similarly stated in College of Physicians of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), (2002), that the equivalent provision in British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c 165, “recognizes that some degree of deliberative secrecy fosters the decision-making process.”468 However, protecting information is balanced against the need for effective public participation in a democracy. In Canada Council of Christian Charities v. Canada (Minister of Finance), (1999), Justice Evans stated: 467 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [43] to [46]. Also relied on by Justice Kalmakoff in Leo v Global Transportation Hub Authority, 2019 SKQB 150 at [31]. 468 College of Physicians of B.C. v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2002 BCCA 665 (CanLII) at [105]. Also noted in BC IPC Order F14-57 at [10].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==