Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, CHAPTER 5, Third Party Information. Updated 9 March 2023. 124 Upon completion of a review, the Commissioner may issue a report. The report will include the Commissioner’s findings and recommendations. If the Commissioner completes a report, it is provided to each party to the review prior to the report becoming publicly available via posting to the Commissioner’s website. All reports are generally posted to the Commissioner’s website seven days after the report is provided to the parties. Reports may be posted to the website sooner where the Commissioner considers it appropriate. For example, where media coverage is going to occur before the report is generally made available to the public on the website. There are also limited circumstances where the Commissioner will not post a report to the website. For example, where the matters are extremely sensitive, an individual may be identified or where the circumstances of a case require additional measures be taken to protect individuals. Government institutions are required, pursuant to section 56 of FOIP, to respond to a report of the Commissioner within 30 days indicating whether it will comply with the Commissioner’s recommendations or any other decision the head considers appropriate. The head’s response should be provided to the other parties to the review and to the Commissioner. The response should be in writing. Once an applicant, individual or third party receives the head’s section 56 response, if not satisfied, it has 30 days to make an application to the Court of King’s Bench if not satisfied pursuant to section 57 of FOIP. For more information on the Court of King’s Bench see Courts of Saskatchewan. In the recent Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan decision, Leo v Global Transportation Hub Authority, 2020 SKCA 91 (CanLII), the court clarified the de novo nature of an appeal pursuant to section 57 of FOIP. Part VII of FOIP does not in any way contemplate that, on an appeal to the Court of King’s Bench, parties can raise any and all provisions of the Act that bear on the question of whether the record in issue may be released. The system of the Act offers no room for a direct appeal to the Court of King’s Bench from the decision of a head, i.e., an appeal that circumvents the application to the Commissioner for a review.253 For more on the IPC’s procedures for reviews, investigations and issuing reports, see Rules of Procedure. See also Guide to Appealing the Decision of a Head of a Government Institution, or a Local Authority, or a Health Trustee. 253 Leo v Global Transportation Hub Authority, 2020 SKCA 91 (CanLII) at [41] and [47].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==