Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 68 Impartial adjudication means a proceeding in which the parties’ legal rights are safeguarded and respected.251 Not favoring one side more than another; unbiased and disinterested; unswayed by personal interest.252 The right to a fair trial is fundamental and cannot be sacrificed.253 For guidance on determining the harm, the Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1994) decision may be of assistance. It concerned a publication ban to prevent the televised broadcast of a fictional account of the sexual abuse of boys in an orphanage until the completion of four criminal charges, where there was a similarity between the subject matter of the television program and the charges faced by the accused individuals. The main issue addressed was whether the infringement of the Charter right to freedom of expression was justified in order to ensure that the accused individuals received a fair and impartial adjudication as contemplated in subsection 11(d) of the Charter. Speaking for the majority, Lamer C.J.C. said: The common law rule governing publication bans has always been traditionally understood as requiring those seeking a ban to demonstrate that there is a real and substantial risk of interference with the right to a fair trial. … [P]ublication bans are not available as protections against remote and speculative dangers.254 In separate reasons, McLachlin J. said: What must be guarded against is the facile assumption that if there is any risk of prejudice to a fair trial, however speculative, the ban should be ordered.255 251 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 153. 252 Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at p. 901. 253 Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 SCR 835, 1994 CanLII 39 (SCC) at p. 841. 254 Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 SCR 835, 1994 CanLII 39 (SCC) at pp. 875 and 880. Also cited and relied on in ON IPC Order P-948 at p. 5. It is important to note that Ontario’s FOIP Act uses “could reasonably be expected to” for its equivalent provision (subsection 14(1)(f)). That threshold is higher than Saskatchewan’s subsection 15(1)(g) of FOIP. 255 Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 SCR 835, 1994 CanLII 39 (SCC) at p. 950. Also cited and relied on in ON IPC Order P-948 at p. 5. It is important to note that Ontario’s FOIP Act uses “could reasonably be expected to” for its equivalent provision (subsection 14(1)(f)). That threshold is higher than Saskatchewan’s subsection 15(1)(g) of FOIP.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==