Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 212 IPC Findings In Review Report 007-2015, the Commissioner considered subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP. An applicant had made an access to information request to the Ministry of Central Services (Central Services) for the Statement of Work attached to Information Technology Consulting Services Agreement ITO-12023. Central Services responded to the applicant advising that it was withholding portions of the Statement of Work pursuant to several provisions of FOIP including subsection 19(1)(b). The Commissioner found that the estimated hours, hourly rate and estimated cost per consultant was the financial and commercial information of the third party. However, the Commissioner found that the estimated hours, hourly rate and estimated cost per consultant were not supplied by the third party because they were part of the contract between Central Services and the third party and the result of negotiation between the parties. As all three parts of the test were not met, the Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP did not apply. In Review Report 031-2015, the Commissioner considered subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP. An applicant had made an access to information request to Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) for all records relating to a Request for Proposals (RFP). SGI responded to the applicant indicating that access was partially granted to some records, but others were withheld pursuant to several exemptions including subsection 19(1)(b). The records at issue under subsection 19(1)(b) were hundreds of pages that constituted the actual proposals submitted by two separate third parties to SGI. There were also 87 pages worth of emails. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the records contained financial, commercial, scientific, technical, and labour relations information. The Commissioner further found that the entire proposal packages of the two third parties constituted commercial information because the proposals related to the buying or selling of goods and services. This approach was consistent with other jurisdictions including British Columbia (Order F09-22) and Ontario (MO-3179). The Commissioner went on to find that all the records were supplied by the third parties, including emails sent to SGI by the third parties. Finally, the Commissioner found that the records were supplied explicitly in confidence. This was based on the submissions of all the parties which indicated all the parties agreed on this fact (mutual understanding). Furthermore, the RFP included a confidentiality clause. As all three parts of the test were met, the Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP was appropriately applied by SGI to the proposals and the severed information in the emails. In Review Report 054-2015 and 055-2015, the Commissioner considered the equivalent provision, subsection 18(1)(b), in The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). An applicant had made an access to information request to the City of Regina (City) for a tender and contract related to a street infrastructure project. The records
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==