Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, CHAPTER 5, Third Party Information. Updated 9 March 2023. 111 to provide access pursuant to subsection 7(5) of LA FOIP. The Commissioner stated that this is referred to as a “deemed refusal”. The Village was then required to account for responsive records in its possession and/or control and only deny access to all or part of the records if permitted by the limited and specific exemptions in LA FOIP. As the Village failed to inform the applicant and the Commissioner of what exemptions it was relying on to withhold the records, the Commissioner found there was not authority to withhold them and recommended the records be released to the applicant. In Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), 1999 CanLII 7857 (FCA), the Federal Court of Appeal found that the federal Information Commissioner may use his power of subpoena to require a government institution to respond to a request by a date set by the Commissioner. Specifically, the Court found that once a request is deemed to have been refused, the Commissioner has the power to compel the head of the government institution (or delegate) to specify the exemptions used to justify refusal of the record and to defend the applicability of those exemptions. This decision is in relation to the Access to Information Act. There has not been a similar case before the courts in Saskatchewan yet. In the decision, Statham v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2010 FCA 315 (CanLII), the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that there was no distinction between a true refusal and a deemed refusal. This decision is in relation to the Access to Information Act. There has not been a similar case before the courts in Saskatchewan yet.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==