Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 6, Protection of Privacy. Updated 27 February 2023. 306 Notations should be: • Permanent and obvious • Should include: o The date o The name of the individual that requested the correction o What the requested correction was o A name or signature of the decision-maker o The reason why the notation instead of the correction was made IPC Findings In Review Report F-2014-004, the Commissioner considered a request for correction made to Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI). The correction request was for personal information to be changed or removed. SGI’s decision was to not make the change but instead put a notation on the file pursuant to subsection 32(2)(b) of FOIP. The applicant did not agree with this decision and requested the Commissioner review it. This was the first time considering this provision in FOIP. The Commissioner determined that the information at issue was the personal information of the applicant. However, the Commissioner found that the information did not contain errors or omissions but was rather the views or impressions of the investigator as they existed at the time the record was created. Those views or impressions could not be said to be “inaccurate”. Finally, the Commissioner determined that the applicant was requesting a removal or correction of the investigator’s opinion. That being, the statement that the applicant was a “high moral risk” and he “flew under the radar for years”. The Commissioner found that SGI’s decision to place a notation on file and not correct the information was reasonable and that the information in question did not qualify for correction under subsection 32(1)(a) of FOIP. In Review Report 069-2014, the Commissioner considered a request for correction made to the Public Service Commission (PSC). The correction request was for personal information (a date) in a Record of Employment to be changed. PSC’s decision was to not make the change but instead put a notation on the file pursuant to subsection 32(2)(b) of FOIP. The applicant did not agree with this decision and requested the Commissioner review it. PSC asserted that the date was correct. The Commissioner found that the information was accurate, and that PSC responded appropriately to the applicant. In Review Report 147-2018, 197-2018, 008-2019, 073-2019/Investigation Report 192-2018, 221-2018, 058-2019, the Commissioner considered a request for correction made to the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==