Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 238 expressed by officials based on their own observations generally cannot be said to be information supplied by a third party.819 Records can still be “supplied” even when they originate with the government institution (i.e., the records still may contain or repeat information extracted from documents supplied by the third party). However, the third-party objecting to disclosure will have to prove that the information originated with it and that it is confidential.820 Whether confidential information has been “supplied” to a government institution by a third party is a question of fact. The content rather than the form of the information must be considered: the mere fact that the information appears in a government document does not, on its own, resolve the issue.821 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. Pursuant to subsection 19(3) of FOIP, where a record contains third party information, the government institution can release it if disclosure is in the public interest and the information relates to public health, public safety or protection of the environment. In addition, the public interest clearly outweighs in importance any financial loss or gain, prejudice to competitive position or interference with contractual negotiations of the third party. For further guidance, see Subsection 19(3) of this Chapter. IPC Findings In Review Report F-2013-003, the Commissioner considered subsection 19(1)(f) of FOIP for the first time. An applicant made an access to information request to the Ministry of Agriculture for records related to the planning, share purchase and takeover of two businesses by Agri-Food Equity Fund in 1998. The Ministry responded to the applicant advising that the records were being withheld in full citing several provisions under FOIP including subsection 19(1)(f). Upon review, the Ministry asserted that subsection 19(1)(f) applied to the project submissions provided by the third party which outlined proposals, plans, amount of debt, marketing plans, financial analysis statements etc. Furthermore, that the third party supplied sales figures, sales projections, losses incurred by the third party, projected losses, as well as information related to inspections and improvements. The Ministry asserted that this information was provided to request additional investment in the third party by AgriFood Equity Fund (AFEF). The Ministry asserted that the AFEF was part of 819 Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), [2012] 1 SCR 23, 2012 SCC 3 (CanLII) at [156] and [158]. 820 Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), [2012] 1 SCR 23, 2012 SCC 3 (CanLII) at [157]. 821 Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), [2012] 1 SCR 23, 2012 SCC 3 (CanLII) at [158].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==