Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 260 Mental health: where the applicant has a history of mental or emotional difficulties and disclosure of the information could worsen or aggravate his/her condition to the point that he/she could harm someone. Violent behavior: where the applicant has a history of violent behavior and disclosure of the identity of informants who assisted the government in its case against the applicant could endanger the safety of the informants.880 It is fair then to look at the probable effect of disclosure from the perspective of the applicant – i.e., what use might this specific applicant make of the requested information? What, in view of what is known about the applicant, might the applicant do to themselves or someone else if the information is disclosed?881 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.882 If the information is already available elsewhere to the public, there may be no need for the exemption.883 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 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 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. 882 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 137. 883 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==