Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 156 December 30, 2013. SaskPower responded to the applicant providing access to some records and withholding others pursuant to subsections 17(1)(a) and (f) of FOIP. SaskPower applied subsection 17(1)(f) of FOIP to a two-page document titled, Minutes – Thursday May 23, 2013. SaskPower asserted the minutes were minutes of a meeting of a Crown corporation that is a government institution under subsection 17(1)(f) of FOIP. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the document constituted minutes and the minutes were from a SaskPower Board of Directors meeting. As SaskPower qualified as a Crown corporation for purposes of subsection 17(1)(f)(i) of FOIP, the Commissioner found the exemption was appropriately applied. The Commissioner recommended the meeting minutes continue to be withheld. Subsection 17(1)(g) 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: … (g) information, including the proposed plans, policies or projects of a government institution, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in disclosure of a pending policy or budgetary decision. Subsection 17(1)(g) 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 information, including the proposed plans, policies or projects of a government institution, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in disclosure of a pending policy or budgetary decision. The provision allows government institutions to prevent premature disclosure of a policy or budgetary decision. Once a policy or budgetary decision has been taken and is being implemented, the information can no longer be withheld under this exemption. A decision has been implemented once those expected to carry out the activity have been authorized and instructed to do so.573 The following two-part test can be applied: 573 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at pp. 182 and 183. Alberta’s subsection 24(1)(g) is substantially similar to Saskatchewan’s provision.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==