Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 302 been provided in confidence. However, mutual understanding alone is not sufficient. Additional factors must exist.1047 The preceding factors are not a test but rather guidance on factors to consider. It is not an exhaustive list. Each case will require different supporting arguments. The bare assertion that the information was provided implicitly in confidence would not be sufficient.1048 Factors to consider when determining if a document was provided in confidence explicitly include (not exhaustive): • The existence of an express condition of confidentiality between the government institution and the party providing it.1049 • The fact that the government institution requested the information be provided in a sealed envelope and/or outlined its confidentiality intentions to the party prior to the information being provided.1050 The preceding factors are not a test but rather guidance on factors to consider. It is not an exhaustive list. Each case will require different supporting arguments. Two cases came before the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan dealing with the equivalent provision in The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act [see s. 30(2)]. Those two cases are as follows: • Fogal v. Regina School Division No. 4, 2002 SKKB 92 (CanLII) • Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKKB 92 (CanLII) IPC Findings In Review Report LA-2004-001, the Commissioner considered the equivalent provision in The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The review involved Lloydminster Public School Division (Division). An applicant requested access to records related to the applicant’s suitability for volunteering in after-school sport activities. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the evaluative or opinion material was not compiled for the purpose of determining the applicant’s suitability, eligibility or qualifications 1047 Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), 2001 FCT 556 at [40]; SK OIPC Review Reports F-2006-002 at [52], LA-2013-002 at [58] to [59]; ON IPC Order MO-1896 at p. 8; BC IPC Order F-11-08 at [32]. 1048 SK OIPC Review Report LA-2013-002 at [60]. 1049 SK OIPC Review Reports F-2006-002 at [56], LA-2013-003 at [113], F-2014-002 at [47]; PEI IPC Order 03-006 at p. 5; AB IPC Orders 97-013 at [23] to [24], 2001-008 at [54]. 1050 SK OIPC Review Reports F-2006-002 at [56], F-2012-001/LA-2012-001 at [29], LA-2013-002 at [49], LA-2013-003 at [113], F-2014-002 at [47]; PEI IPC Order 03-006 at p. 5; AB IPC Order 97-013 at [25].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==