Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 129 weighing the significance of fact. It includes expert opinion on matters of fact on which a government institution must make a decision for future action.474 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.475 Advice has a broader meaning than recommendations.476 The legislative intention was for advice to have a distinct meaning from recommendations. Otherwise, it would be redundant.477 While “recommendation” is an express suggestion, “advice” is simply an implied recommendation.478 A recommendation is a specific piece of advice about what to do, especially when given officially; it is a suggestion that someone should choose a particular thing or person that one thinks particularly good or meritorious.479 Recommendations relate to a suggested course of action more explicitly and pointedly than “advice”.480 It can include material that relates to a suggested course of action that will ultimately be accepted or rejected by the person being advised.481 It includes suggestions for a course of action as well as the rationale or substance 474 College of Physicians of B.C. v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2002 BCCA 665 (CanLII) at [113] to [114]. 475 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. 476 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]. 477 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]. 478 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]. 479 Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at p. 1526. 480 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]. 481 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].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==