Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 6, Protection of Privacy. Updated 27 February 2023. 255 need-to-know the personal information to carry out the purpose. See Need-to-Know and Data Minimization earlier in this Chapter. IPC Findings As of the issuing of this Chapter, the Commissioner has not considered this provision in a Report yet. This section will be updated accordingly when it is considered. Although not related to subsection 29(2)(r) of FOIP, the Commissioner issued two reports that are worth noting here: In Review Report 233-2020, the Commissioner considered a denial of access by the Rural Municipality of Big River No. 555 (RM). An applicant had requested access to information related to flooding of landowners’ properties because of a beaver dam on another landowner’s property. Included was a request for access to all information to and from the Ombudsman. In its submission to the Commissioner, the RM asserted that it was withholding records involving the Ombudsman’s office pursuant to subsection 14(1)(c) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) and that the Ombudsman’s office was undertaking a “lawful investigation” as contemplated by subsection 14(1)(c) of LA FOIP. The RM asserted that section 21 of The Ombudsman Act, 2012 authorized the investigation. The Commissioner considered subsections 23(1)(c) and (2) of The Ombudsman Act, 2012 requires notice of an investigation to a municipal entity. The Commissioner requested the RM to provide a copy of the notice however the RM indicated it did not have one. As the RM could not demonstrate that the investigation was a lawful investigation pursuant to section 21 of The Ombudsman Act, 2012, the Commissioner found that subsection 14(1)(c) of LA FOIP did not apply. In Investigation Report 017-2019, the Commissioner investigated a breach of privacy complaint made against the Rural Municipality of Rosthern No. 403 (RM). The complainant alleged that the RM breached their privacy by submitting a confidential report and a letter prepared by the Ombudsman to the Court of King’s Bench. Upon investigation, the Commissioner determined that a councillor for the RM submitted the report and letter to the court for a personal matter involving the complainant and not for RM related matters. Further, the Ombudsman report and letter were provided to the RM for RM related business and were therefore in the RM’s possession and control. The Commissioner found that the RM did not have authority to disclose the report and letter which contained the complainant’s personal information.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==