Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, CHAPTER 2, Administration of LA FOIP. Updated 2 March 2023. 47 Privacy breaches: LA FOIP does not define burden of proof in a breach of privacy investigation. Since a complainant raises the issue, the complainant has the initial burden to establish that a privacy breach has occurred involving the complainant’s personal information. If a collection, use or disclosure is established, the burden then shifts to the local authority to justify its authority under LA FOIP for the data transaction.72 Only the local authority would have intimate knowledge of the circumstances surrounding a breach. The burden of proof is assessed on a balance of probabilities.73 Fees: LA FOIP does not define burden of proof in a review of a fee estimate. However, having regard for the purpose of the Act and the practice in other Canadian jurisdictions, the head of the local authority should also bear the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the fee under the Act.74 Transfers: LA FOIP does not define burden of proof in a review of a transfer of an access request (section 11). However, the local authority that transfers the request is in the best position to explain why it transferred it.75 Extensions: LA FOIP does not define burden of proof in a review involving an extension of time (section 12). However, the burden of proof of establishing an appropriate basis to extend the time to respond to an applicant under LA FOIP should be borne by the local authority.76 Corrections: LA FOIP does not define burden of proof in a review of a request for correction (section 31). However, the applicant has the initial burden to establish that there are errors or omissions in the personal information that are subject to correction.77 Once an error or emission is established, the burden of proof shifts to the local authority to justify its decision to not correct the personal information. 72 Service Alberta, FOIP Bulletin No. 9, Burden of Proof, November 2009 at p. 4. 73 SK OIPC Investigation Report LA-2010-001 at [26]. This is also consistent with Alberta – see Service Alberta, FOIP Bulletin No. 9, Burden of Proof, November 2009 at p. 4. 74 SK OIPC Review Report F-2005-005 at [29]. This is also consistent with Alberta – see Service Alberta, FOIP Bulletin No. 9, Burden of Proof, November 2009 at p. 4. 75 SK OIPC Review Report F-2013-005 at [21]. 76 SK OIPC Review Report F-2008-001 at [14] and F-2006-005 at [27]. 77 SK OIPC Review Report F-2014-004 at [21].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==