Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, CHAPTER 5, Third Party Information. Updated 9 March 2023. 83 a. No, it is not third party personal information… Where the head of the government institution concludes that the information at issue does not qualify as the personal information of a third party individual, subsection 34(1)(b) of FOIP does not apply. The information can be released or considered for exemption under another provision of FOIP. A third party would not have a right to apply to the Commissioner for review under subsection 49(3) of FOIP where the head of the government institution determined the information at issue was not third party personal information under subsection 24(1) of FOIP.192 The absence of standing If a government institution concludes that a particular request is not likely to involve third party personal information, it is not required to give notice to anyone before deciding in favour of disclosure. A person potentially affected by the release of the requested information might maintain: • That the institution was wrong in its preliminary conclusion about the nature of the information, and • That the decision to disclose was in error. However, that person, for lack of third party status, will usually be without standing to obtain a review of any determination made by the government institution. The institution may have erred in not recognizing a third party interest, yet there is no statutory remedy in those circumstances. Review is generally open only to someone whom the institution was prepared to treat as a third party entitled to make representations in the context of its consideration of the request for information.193 192 See Sawridge Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (1987), 10 F.T.R. 48, aff'd sub nom and Twinn v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (1987), 80 N.R. 263 (F.C.A.) at p. 373. These decisions dealt with the federal Access to Information Act but are relevant for FOIP. The court held that the right to seek a review was not available to the third party because notice was not required because the information was not deemed third party information. 193 Government Information Access and Privacy, McNairn and Woodbury, Carswell, 2008, at pp. 6-15 to 6-16. See also SK OIPC Review Report LA-2009-001 at [101].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==