Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 89 Subsection 15(1)(l) of FOIP is a discretionary class-based exemption. It permits refusal of access in situations where release of a record could reveal technical information relating to weapons or potential weapons. An example could include information on how to make a bomb. The following test can be applied: Could release reveal technical information relating to weapons or potential weapons? 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 the assertion. If it is fanciful or exceedingly remote, the exemption should not be invoked.331 For this provision to apply there must be objective grounds for believing that disclosing the information could reveal technical information relating to weapons or potential weapons. Reveal means to make known; cause or allow to be seen.332 Technical information is information belonging to an organized field of knowledge which would fall under the general categories of applied sciences or mechanical arts. Examples of these fields would include architecture, engineering or electronics…it will usually involve information prepared by a professional in the field and describe the construction, operation or maintenance of a structure, process, equipment or thing. Finally, technical information must be given a meaning separate from scientific information.333 Relating to should be given a plain but expansive meaning.334 The phrase should be read in its grammatical and ordinary sense. There is no need to incorporate complex requirements (such as “substantial connection”) for its application, which would be inconsistent with the plain unambiguous meaning of the words of the statute.335 “Relating to” requires some connection between the technical information and weapons both existing and potential.336 331 SK OIPC Review Reports LA-2007-001 at [117], LA-2013-001 at [35], F-2014-001 at [149]. 332 Pearsall, Judy, Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th Ed., (Oxford University Press) at p. 1224. 333 SK OPIC definition accepted by Justice Keene in Consumers Co-operative Refineries Limited v Regina (City), 2016 SK B 335 (CanLII) at [20]. Same definition is used for third party exemption at subsection 19(1)(b) of this Guide. 334 Gertner v. Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company, 2011 ONSC 6121 (CanLII) at [32]. 335 Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star, 2010 ONSC 991 (CanLII) at [45]. This case dealt specifically with an appeal regarding Ontario’s FOIP legislation. 336 Adapted from Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star, 2010 ONSC 991 (CanLII) at [43].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==