Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 135 • That advice was sought or given on a particular topic or at a particular time.503 It also generally does not apply to process notes. Process notes are brief descriptions of next steps that result from a decision, or directions regarding who should attend meetings or review documents. Processes are established and simply followed and generally contain no advice or recommendations.504 If releasing this information reveals the substance of the advice, recommendations, proposals, analyses and/or policy options, the government institution can withhold this information.505 Where a review by the IPC occurs and this is the exception, the government institution should demonstrate how and why release of this type of information would reveal the substance of the advice, recommendations, proposals, analyses and/or policy options.506 Advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options can be revealed in two ways: 1. The information itself consists of advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options. 2. The information, if disclosed, would permit the drawing of accurate inferences as to the nature of the actual advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options.507 Subsection 17(1) of FOIP includes the requirement that access can be refused where it “could reasonably be expected to disclose” the protected information listed in the exemptions. The meaning of the phrase “could reasonably be expected to” in terms of harm-based exemptions was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Service) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), (2014). Although 503 Originated from AB IPC Review Report F2004-026 at [65] and [71]. Adopted in NWT IPC Review Report 17-163 at pp. 9 and 10. Adopted in SK OIPC Review Reports F-2012-004 at [27] to [30] and F2014-001 at [280]. 504 Saskatchewan (Ministry of Health) v West, 2022 SKCA 18 at [56]. See also SK OIPC Review Report 244-2018 at [40] and NS IPC Review Report 18-02 at [21]. 505 AB IPC Order F2004-026 at [65]. 506 “There may be cases where some of the foregoing items reveal the content of the advice. However, that must be demonstrated for every case for which it is claimed”. See AB IPC Order F2004-026 at [71]. 507 ON IPC Orders PO-3470-R at [28], PO-2084 at p. 8 and PO-2028 at pp. 10 and 11, upheld on judicial review in Ontario (Ministry of Northern Development and Mines) v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] O.J. No. 163 (Div. Ct.), aff’d [2005] O.J. No. 4048 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 564. See also Order PO-1993 at p. 12, upheld on judicial review in Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2005] O.J. No. 4047 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 563.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==