Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 130 1. Does the information qualify as advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options? Advice is guidance offered by one person to another.471 It can include the analysis of a situation or issue that may require action and the presentation of options for future action, but not the presentation of facts.472 Advice encompasses material that permits the drawing of inferences with respect to a suggested course of action, but which does not itself make a specific recommendation. It can be an implied recommendation.473 The “pros and cons” of various options also qualify as advice.474 It should not be given a restricted meaning. Rather, it should be interpreted to include an opinion that involves exercising judgement and skill in 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.475 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.476 Advice has a broader meaning than recommendations.477 The legislative intention was for advice to have a distinct meaning from recommendations. Otherwise, it would be redundant.478 While “recommendation” is an express suggestion, “advice” is simply an implied recommendation.479 471 Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at p. 67. 472 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]. 473 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [26]. Relied on by Justice Danyliuk in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [77]. 474 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [47]. Relied on in ON IPC Order PO-3470-R at [21]. 475 College of Physicians of B.C. v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2002 BCCA 665 (CanLII) at [113] to [114]. 476 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. 477 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]. 478 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]. 479 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].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==