Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 6, Protection of Privacy. Updated 27 February 2023. 73 The staff of a member of the Executive Council: The phrase includes the staff in a Minister’s office, such as Chief of Staff, Administrative Assistants and Ministerial Assistants. Subsection 28(1) of The Executive Government Administration Act defines the staff of the Office of the Executive Council as follows: 28(1) The staff of the office consists of: a) the Deputy Minister to the Premier; b) the Cabinet Secretary; c) the Clerk of the Executive Council; and d) any other employees that are required for the proper conduct of the business of the office. Severance payments arise in contemplation of the termination of employment. They arise in one of three ways: contractual provision, negotiated settlement or court ordered. Regardless of their origin, all three types are intended to address the issue of termination of employment without cause. Severance payments are either actual (court ordered) or estimated (contractual provision) damages for breach of contract. They are characterized and calculated as “pay in lieu of notice” but their essential character is that of damages. Their purpose is to place the terminated party in the position he or she would have been in but for the breach of contract. Severance payments cannot be considered as bestowing any advantage or betterment on the recipient. Unlike a bonus or employer pension contribution, there is no advantage bestowed. The term “benefit” cannot be interpreted to include severance payments. Therefore, severance payments qualify as personal information and do not fit under the definition of “discretionary benefits” pursuant to subsection 24(2)(a) of FOIP.208 IPC Findings In Investigation Report 266-2017, the Commissioner found that information about an employee’s duties did not qualify as the employee’s personal information pursuant to subsection 24(2)(a) of FOIP. Further, the hours that the employee worked was also found to not be the employee’s personal information. In coming to this finding, the Commissioner considered Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 1997 CanLII 358 (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 403 whereby the Supreme Court of Canada decided sign-in logs containing the name, dates and 208 Hans v. STU, 2016 NBKB 49 (CanLII) at [27] and 29]. See also SK OIPC Review Report 173-2018 at [12]. Further, see subsection 16(g)(ii) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations, RRS c F-22.01 Reg 1.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==