Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, CHAPTER 5, Third Party Information. Updated 9 March 2023. 27 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. In Review Report 195-2015 and 196-2015, the Commissioner considered subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP. An applicant made two access to information requests to the Ministry of Central Services (Central Services) for all current active information technology service contracts with a maximum value of over $1 million and any between Central Services and Solvera Solutions over $1 million. Central Services responded to the applicant advising that some of the information in the contracts was being withheld under various provisions of FOIP including withholding the hourly rates for contracted services pursuant to subsection 19(1)(b). Upon review, the Commissioner found that the hourly rates for contracted services qualified as commercial information of the third party. However, the Commissioner found that the third party did not supply the hourly rates for contracted services because they were provisions of a contract that were mutually generated through negotiation. As all three parts of the test were not met, the Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP did not apply. In Review Report 229-2015, the Commissioner considered subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP. An applicant made an access to information request to Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) for information related to a contract for Centralized Driver License and Identification Card Production and Facial Recognition Services including contract price, price per card components, lump sum price components and card volume and contract term. SGI responded to the applicant indicating that some of the information was being withheld pursuant to several provisions of FOIP including subsection 19(1)(b). The Commissioner found that the price per unit and lump sum prices constituted the commercial information of the third party. Furthermore, the Commissioner found that the price per unit and lump sum prices were terms of the contract that had been agreed to by both the third party and SGI and as such were mutually generated as part of the negotiation process. The Commissioner distinguished this case from Review Report 054-2015 and 055-2015, where the unit prices were provided on a blank Form of Tender provided by the City of Regina to bidders. The Commissioner noted that unlike the other case, the bidding process was concluded, the successful bidder was selected and a contract was already awarded. The Commissioner found that the unit prices and lump sum prices were not supplied by the third party but were negotiated terms of the contract that both parties agreed to. As the second part of the test was not met, the Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(b) of FOIP was not appropriately applied. The third party appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the Court of King’s Bench where Justice Zarzeczny in Canadian Bank Note Limited v Saskatchewan Government Insurance, considered the facts and circumstances in the de novo appeal, agreed that the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==