Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 129 [32] On the other hand, of course, democratic principles require that the public, and this often means the representatives of sectional interests, are enabled to participate as widely as possible in influencing policy development. Without a degree of openness on the part of government about its thinking on public policy issues, and without access to relevant information in the possession of government, the effectiveness of public participation will inevitably be curbed.469 When determining the application of section 17 of FOIP, government institutions should keep the intention of the Legislature for provisions like section 17 of FOIP in mind along with the purposes of FOIP. For more on this, go to Balancing Interests under the heading titled, Interpreting Exemptions earlier in this Chapter. In addition, see the Guide to FOIP, Chapter 1, “Purposes and Scope of FOIP,” under the heading, The Purposes of FOIP. Subsection 17(1)(a) Advice from officials 17(1) Subject to subsection (2), a head may refuse to give access to a record that could reasonably be expected to disclose: (a) advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options developed by or for a government institution or a member of the Executive Council; Subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP is a discretionary class-based exemption. It permits refusal of access in situations where release of a record could reasonably be expected to disclose advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options developed by or for a government institution or a member of the Executive Council. The following two-part test can be applied:470 469 Canada Council of Christian Charities v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 1999 CanLII 8293 (FC), [1999] 4 F.C. 245 at [32]. 470 Between June and October 2019, the Commissioner modified the original three-part test and the definitions associated with subsection 17(1)(a) in consideration of two court decisions, Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 and Hande v University of Saskatchewan, QBG 1222 of 2018 May 21, 2019. The first report where the Commissioner brought forward both the new two-part test and the modified definitions was SK OIPC Review Report 244-2018.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==