Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 253 plain unambiguous meaning of the words of the statute.855 “Relating to” requires some connection between the information and the testing or auditing procedures or techniques.856 Details means a number of particulars; an aggregate of small items.857 A test is a set of questions, exercises or practical activities that measure either what someone knows or what someone or something is like or can do.858 An audit is the formal examination of an individual’s or organization’s accounting records, financial situation or compliance with some other set of standards.859 It is the systematic identification, evaluation and assessment of an organization’s policies, procedures, acts and practices against pre-defined standards.860 The terms testing and auditing cover a wide range of activities. Examples include environmental testing, language testing, personnel audits, financial audits, staffing examinations and program audits. The exemption applies to testing and auditing carried out by government institutions, consultants, and contractors.861 2. Could disclosure reasonably be expected to prejudice the use or results of particular tests or audits? “Could reasonably be expected to” means there must be a reasonable expectation that disclosure could prejudice the use or results of particular tests or audits. The Supreme Court of Canada set out the standard of proof for harms-based provisions as follows: This Court in Merck Frosst adopted the “reasonable expectation of probable harm” formulation and it should be used wherever the “could reasonably be expected to” language is used in access to information statutes. As the Court in Merck Frosst emphasized, the statute tries to mark out a middle ground between that which is probable and that which is merely possible. An institution must provide evidence “well 855 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. 856 Adapted from Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star, 2010 ONSC 991 (CanLII) at [43]. 857 British Columbia Government Services, FOIPPA Policy Definitions at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/services-for-government/policiesprocedures/foippa-manual/policy-definitions. Accessed April 23, 2020. 858 Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at p. 1776. 859 Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at p. 161. 860 SK OIPC Review Report F-2010-001 at [97]. 861 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Access to Information Manual, Chapter 11.19. Available at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/accessinformation/access-information-manual.html#cha11_19. Accessed September 5, 2019
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==