Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 58 In order for the release of a record to be injurious to the government institution (or Government of Saskatchewan) “in the context of existing or anticipated legal proceedings”, the government institution (or Government of Saskatchewan) would need to be a party to such proceedings.206 When there is a review by the IPC, the government institution is invited to provide a submission (arguments). The government institution should describe the harm in detail to support the application of the provision. Government institutions should not assume that the harm is self-evident on the face of the records. Parallel civil court action does not bar or preclude a formal review by the IPC.207 Discovery and disclosure provisions of The Queen’s Bench Rules of Saskatchewan operate independent of any process under FOIP. Subsection 4(c) of FOIP establishes that FOIP does not limit access to information otherwise available by law to parties to litigation. Section 4 also establishes that FOIP complements and does not replace existing procedures for access to records. Therefore, the injury should be above and beyond any prejudice that relates to the production of a relevant, non-privileged document in the usual course of a lawsuit.208 Where there are concerns or objections to the admissibility of any records in legal proceedings, such concerns could be argued before that tribunal. If a record is prejudicial to a government institution’s position, it would have the usual opportunity to make a submission to the tribunal who will then make a determination as it determines appropriate.209 In Britto v University of Saskatchewan, (2018), Justice Danyliuk confirmed the above position at paragraph [61] but determined that it did not go far enough. Danyliuk J. added at paragraph [66] that the Act does not trump every potential privilege claim simply because the documents disclosed may later be argued to be inadmissible. The problem is twofold: not only is there potential use and abuse of the disclosed record before any admissibility ruling is made under the adjudicative process, but there is also the broader problem of the undercutting of the free communications essential to seeking and obtaining legal advice.210 206 SK OIPC Review Report LA-2013-001 at [32]. 207 SK OIPC Review Report LA-2013-001 at [48]. 208 SK OIPC Review Reports LA-2007-001 at [121], 145-2015 at [13], 153-2015 at [61], 223-2015 and 224-2015 at [19]. 209 SK OIPC Review Reports LA-2014-004 at [15] and 153-2015 at [64]. 210 Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [61], [66] and [68].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==