Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 134 drafts before communicating part or all of their content to another person. The nature of the deliberative process is to draft and redraft advice or recommendations until the writer is sufficiently satisfied that they are prepared to communicate the results to someone else. All the information in those earlier drafts informs the end result even if the content of any one draft is not included in the final version.498 The information does not have to have arrived at the person who can take or implement the action in order to qualify as advice, recommendations, proposals, analyses and/or policy options.499 The provision is not meant to protect the bare recitation of facts, without anything further.500 The provision should be reserved for the opinion, policy, or normative elements of advice, and should not be extended to the facts on which it is based. The exception is where the advice and facts may be so intertwined as to preclude release.501 Factual material means a cohesive body of facts, which are distinct from advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses and/or policy options. A government institution can only withhold factual material or assertions of fact under subsection 17(1) of FOIP if the factual information is sufficiently interwoven with other advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses and/or policy options so that it cannot reasonably be considered separate and distinct. In other words, where factual information is intertwined with advice or recommendations in a manner whereby no reasonable separation can be made, then the information is not factual material and can be withheld.502 The exemption does not generally apply to records or parts of records that in themselves reveal only the following: • That advice was sought or given; • That particular persons were involved in the seeking or giving of advice; or 498 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [48] to [51]. 499 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [48] to [51]. 500 Originated from AB IPC Order 96-006 at p. 10. Relied on in Office of the Nunavut Information and Privacy Commissioner (NU IPC) Review Report 17-131 at p. 6; Office of the Northwest Territories Information and Privacy Commissioner (NWT IPC) Review Report 06-055 at p. 7. Also relied on in SK OIPC Review Reports LA-2007-001 at [54], LA-2011-001 at [58] and F-2014-001 at [279]. 501 3430901 Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Industry), [2002] 1 FC 421, 2001 FCA 254 (CanLII) at [55]. Also see AB IPC Order 99-001 and Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 179. 502 British Columbia Government Services, FOIPPA Policy and Procedures Manual at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/services-for-government/policiesprocedures/foippa-manual/policy-advice-recommendations. Accessed July 5, 2019.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==