Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, CHAPTER 5, Third Party Information. Updated 9 March 2023. 7 Insurance (SGI) for all records relating to a Request for Proposals (RFP). SGI responded to the applicant indicating that access was partially granted to some records, but others were withheld pursuant to several exemptions including subsection 19(1)(b). The records at issue under subsection 19(1)(b) were hundreds of pages that constituted the actual proposals submitted to SGI by two separate third parties. There were also 87 pages worth of emails. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the records contained financial, commercial, scientific, technical and labour relations information of the third parties. The Commissioner further found that the entire proposal packages of the two third parties constituted commercial information because the proposals were related to the buying or selling of goods and services. This approach was consistent with other jurisdictions including British Columbia (Order F09-22) and Ontario (MO-3179). The Commissioner went on to find that all the records were supplied by the third parties, including emails sent to SGI by the third parties. Finally, the Commissioner found that the records were supplied explicitly in confidence. This was based on the submissions of all the parties which indicated all the parties agreed on this fact (mutual understanding). Furthermore, the RFP included a confidentiality clause. As all three parts of the test were met, the Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP was appropriately applied by SGI to the proposals and the severed information in the emails. In Review Report 054-2015 and 055-2015, the Commissioner considered the equivalent provision, subsection 18(1)(b), in The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). An applicant had made an access to information request to the City of Regina (City) for a tender and contract related to a street infrastructure project. The records involved were two documents titled, Form of Tender. The applicant was only interested in the unit prices and total prices severed from the two documents. The City withheld this information in part under subsection 18(1)(b) of LA FOIP. The City asserted that the unit prices disclosed pricing and pricing practices of the third parties involved in a competitive contract award process. The Commissioner found the unit prices and total prices constituted commercial and financial information of the third parties. The City asserted that the tender package supplied by the City to bidders contained a blank Form of Tender. Bidders entered their specific data in Schedule A of the form and returned it to the City as part of their bid package. Based on this, the Commissioner found that the third parties supplied the unit prices and total prices. The City asserted that clause 19 of the Instructions to Bidders issued by the City indicated that financial and commercial information supplied by bidders would be supplied in confidence. Based on this, the Commissioner found that the unit pricing and total prices were supplied explicitly in confidence. As all three parts of the test were met, the Commissioner found that subsection 18(1)(b) of LA FOIP was appropriately applied.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==