Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 232 (such as “substantial connection”) for its application, which would be inconsistent with the plain unambiguous meaning of the words of the statute.802 “Relating to” requires some connection between the information and the provision of routine services.803 With respect to are words of the widest possible scope; the phrase is probably the widest of any expression intended to convey some connection between two related subject matters.804 Routine means a regular course of procedure; an unvarying performance of certain acts; regular or unvarying procedure or performance.805 Services means labour performed in the interest or under the direction of others; the performance of some useful act or series of acts for the benefit of another, usually for a fee; an intangible commodity in the form of human effort, such as labour, skill or advice.806 FOIP defines a third party as a person, including an unincorporated entity, other than an applicant or a government institution.807 A “local authority”, as defined under subsection 2(1)(f) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, can also qualify as a third party for purposes of FOIP.808 2. Is the statement from a government institution? FOIP defines a government institution at subsection 2(1)(d). The statement must be from the government institution to meet the second part of the test. Pursuant to subsection 19(2) of FOIP, where a record contains third party information, the government institution can release it with the written consent of the third party. 802 Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star, 2010 ONSC 991 (CanLII) at [45]. This case dealt specifically with an appeal regarding Ontario’s FOIP legislation. 803 Adapted from Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star, 2010 ONSC 991 (CanLII) at [43]. 804 The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) established the meaning of the phrase “in respect of” in Nowegijick v. The Queen, [1983] 1 SCR 29, 1983 CanLII 18 (SCC) at [39]. The SCC later applied the same interpretation to the phrase “with respect to” in CanadianOxy Chemicals Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1999] 1 SCR 743, 1999 CanLII 680 (SCC) at [15] to [17]. Summary of this can be found in Gardner, J., and Gardner K. (2016) Sangan’s Encyclopedia of Words and Phrases Legal Maxims, Canada, 5th Edition, Volume 5, S to Z at p. w-97. 805 The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Oxford University Press 1973, Volume 1 at p. 2620. 806 Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at p. 1643. 807 The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.S. 1990-91, c. F-22.01 at subsection 2(1)(j). 808 SK OIPC Review Report 080-2018 at [51] and [52].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==