Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 1, Purposes and Scope of LA FOIP. Updated 7 March 2023. 14 IPC Findings In Review Report LA-2010-002, the Commissioner reviewed a denial of access involving the City of Saskatoon (City). An applicant, who was an employee of the Saskatoon Police Service, requested access to the findings of a 2002 harassment investigation. The City denied access to the requested record indicating that LA FOIP did not apply to the Saskatoon Police Service. Upon review, the City advised the Commissioner that the City no longer had the record and had sent it to the Saskatoon Police Service. At the time of this review, LA FOIP did not apply to police services in the province. As a result of having sent the record to the Saskatoon Police Service, the City refused to provide the Commissioner with a copy of the record as requested by the Commissioner. The Commissioner found that the City had “possession with a measure of control” over the record. In Review Report 247-2017, the Commissioner reviewed a denial of access involving the Town of Willow Bunch (Town). An applicant requested access to records from the Town. The Town responded indicating the records requested did not exist. Upon review, the Town informed the Commissioner that the record (Town Administrator’s notes) had been destroyed prior to receiving the access to information request. The Commissioner reviewed whether the Town had possession or control of the records. The Town Administrator said the destroyed record were their personal notes. However, the Commissioner found the notes related to Town business and the Administrator was being paid by the Town at the time the notes were made, therefore, the notes would not be considered “personal” notes. The Commissioner found that the Town had possession and control of the record and as such it was subject to LA FOIP. In Review Report 156-2017, 264-2017, the Commissioner reviewed a denial of access involving the Rural Municipality of Manitou Lake No. 442 (RM). An applicant (a councillor) sought access to committee minutes and correspondence between the RM and the Commissioner’s office. The RM denied access to the responsive records. Late in the review, the RM asserted to the Commissioner that it did not have control over some of the records. It indicated that the records were originally identified as responsive as it wanted to be transparent. The RM asserted that the records were collected by an employee of the RM to make a harassment complaint. The RM indicated that the employee kept them in the RM office because the employee did not have a secure place to keep them at home. The Commissioner found that the RM had possession and control of the records. This finding was mainly the result of the RM not providing what was needed for the Commissioner to find otherwise.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==