Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 136 individuals involved in sending the recommendations in the drafts of the policy were individuals within Economy that would appropriately have the responsibility to provide the recommendations and were involved in the development and implementation of the policy. As such, the Commissioner found that subsection 17(1)(a) of FOIP applied to the draft versions of the policy. Subsection 17(1)(b) 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: … (b) consultations or deliberations involving: (i) officers or employees of a government institution; (ii) a member of the Executive Council; or (iii) the staff of a member of the Executive Council; Subsection 17(1)(b) 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 consultations or deliberations involving officers or employees of a government institution, a member of the Executive Council or the staff of a member of the Executive Council. The provision is intended to allow persons having the responsibility to make decisions to freely discuss the issues before them in order to arrive at well-reasoned decisions. The intent is to allow such persons to address an issue without fear of being wrong, looking bad or appearing foolish if their frank deliberations were to be made public.507 The following two-part test can be applied: 1. Does the record contain consultations or deliberations? Consultation means: • The act of consulting or taking counsel together: deliberation, conference. 507 AB IPC Orders 96-006 at p. 10 and F2004-026 at p. 16. Alberta’s subsection 14(1)(b) of Alberta’s FOIP is substantially similar to Saskatchewan’s subsection 17(1)(b) of FOIP.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==