Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 258 of what is known about the applicant, might the applicant do to themselves or someone else if the information is disclosed?880 For example, the mental or physical health of a person would be threatened if information were disclosed to an applicant that would cause severe stress such as suicidal ideation or that could result in verbal or physical harassment or stalking. Individual safety could be threatened if information were released that allowed someone who had threatened to kill or injure the individual to locate them. Examples of individuals whose safety might be threatened would include an individual fleeing from a violent spouse, a victim of harassment or a witness to harassment, or an employee who has been threatened.881 If the information is already available elsewhere to the public, there may be no need for the exemption.882 IPC Findings In Evenson v Kelsey Trail Regional Health Authority, (2012), Justice Zarzeczny considered the equivalent provision in The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, (section 20). Kelsey Trail Regional Health Authority (KTRHA) had denied an applicant access to certain hospital records including the names of nurses that were on duty at the Melfort Hospital during a specific time. Justice Zarzeczny ruled that KTRHA had not established that the exemption applied. Further, that the concerns about the applicant raised by KTRHA did not have any basis or foundation in fact. Nor were they supported by any circumstances which were established in the materials that were presented to the Commissioner in Review Report LA-2012-002. In Consumers’ Co-Operative Refineries Limited v. Regina (City), (2016), Justice Keene ruled that a Major Hazard Risk Assessment Report (MHRAR) qualified for the equivalent provision in The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, (section 20). In making this decision, Justice Keene considered that the MHRAR revealed specific parts of a refinery where the worst possible accidents could occur. Over disclosure of the information could be harmful to the public (i.e., nondisclosure of records can actually promote public safety in certain circumstances). Facilities such as nuclear power plants and refining complexes could 880 Information Commissioner of Canada resource, Investigator’s Guide to Interpreting the Act, Section 17: Safety of Individuals. Available at https://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/en/investigators-guide-interpretingact/section-17-safety-individuals. Accessed September 6, 2019. 881 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 137. 882 Information Commissioner of Canada resource, Investigator’s Guide to Interpreting the Act, Section 17: Safety of Individuals. Available at https://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/en/investigators-guide-interpretingact/section-17-safety-individuals. Accessed September 6, 2019.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==