Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 154 1. Is the record an agenda of a meeting or minutes of a meeting? Agendas and minutes of meetings can be revealed in two ways: 1. The information itself consists of agendas or meeting minutes. 2. The information, if disclosed, would permit the drawing of accurate inferences as to the content of the actual agendas or meeting minutes.570 Agendas are a list of things to be done, as items to be considered at a meeting, usually arranged in order of consideration.571 Minutes are memoranda or notes of a transaction, proceeding or meeting; the formal record of a deliberative assembly’s meeting, approved by the assembly; the record of all official actions taken.572 2. Are the agendas or minutes of: • A board, commission, Crown corporation or other body that is a government institution. (See the Appendix at Part I of the FOIP Regulations for bodies that qualify) or • A prescribed committee of a board, commission, Crown corporation or other body that is a government institution. Currently, the FOIP Regulations do not list any committees of a board, commission, Crown corporation or other body that is a government institution. 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 section 17 of FOIP is not a harms-based provision, the threshold provided by the Court for “could reasonably be expected to” is instructive: 570 Adapted from 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. 571 Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at p. 78. 572 Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at p. 1194.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==