Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 57 1. Do the proceedings qualify as existing or anticipated legal proceedings? Legal proceedings are any civil or criminal proceeding or inquiry in which evidence is or may be given and includes an arbitration.199 It includes proceedings governed by rules of court or rules of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals that can result in a judgement of a court or a ruling by a tribunal. Legal proceedings include all proceedings authorized or sanctioned by law and brought or instituted in a court or legal tribunal, for the acquiring of a right or the enforcement of a remedy.200 Labour grievances qualify as “legal proceedings” for statutory purposes.201 To qualify for this exemption, the legal proceedings must be “existing or anticipated” as the provision uses these terms. Anticipated means more than merely possible.202 To regard as probable.203 2. Could disclosure of the records be injurious to the government institution in the conduct of the legal proceedings? There must be objective grounds for believing that disclosing the information could result in injury. Section 15 of FOIP uses the word could versus “could reasonably be expected to” as seen in other provisions of FOIP. The threshold for could is somewhat lower than a reasonable expectation. The requirement for could is simply that the release of the information could have the specified result. There would still have to be a basis for asserting the harm could occur. If it is fanciful or exceedingly remote, the exemption should not be invoked.204 Injury implies damage or detriment.205 The exemption is designed to protect the government institution from harm in its existing or anticipated legal proceedings. 199 Canada Evidence Act, RSC, 1985, c C-5, s. 30(12), Relied on in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [46]. 200 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Appendix 1: Definitions at p. 376, Part of the definition comes from Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at p. 1458, First adopted by SK OIPC in Review Report LA-2013-001 at [25] and [27], Affirmed in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [44] and [49]. 201 Park v. The Queen, 2012 TCC 306 at [65], Relied on in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [47], Also found in Review Reports LA-2013-001 at [23] to [31], LA-2014-004 at [15]. 202 Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [58]. 203 Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th Edition, Revised, 2002, USA: Oxford University Press at p. 56. 204 SK OIPC Review Reports LA-2007-001 at [117], LA-2013-001 at [35], F-2014-001 at [149]. 205 Adapted from definition of ‘harm’ in Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 148.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==