Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, CHAPTER 2, Administration of LA FOIP. Updated 2 March 2023. 6 IPC Findings In Review Report LA-2012-003, the Commissioner reviewed a denial of access involving the Village of Buena Vista (Village). The applicant was the Mayor of the Village. The Mayor was also the designated head with responsibility under LA FOIP. However, the elected Council and Village Administrator did not agree and did not recognize this designation. In addition, the elected Council and Village Administrator refused to provide the Mayor access to the requested records. The Commissioner found that the Mayor was the designated head of the local authority and recommended the Mayor be given access to records. In Review Report LA-2010-002, the Commissioner dealt with a request for access to a report resulting from a harassment investigation. In that report at footnote [3], the Commissioner noted that although the City Clerk had referred to herself as the “head” in correspondence this was inaccurate. The Mayor of Saskatoon had delegated to the City Clerk his rights and powers under LA FOIP pursuant to section 50 of LA FOIP. However, the delegation did not change the status of the Mayor as the “head”. Further, the Commissioner noted that the City Clerk was for purposes of LA FOIP, in the role of the LA FOIP Coordinator. In Review Report LA-2013-004, the Commissioner clarified for the Northern Village of Pinehouse, that the designation of the Mayor as “head” is a statutory provision designed to ensure accountability to the public. The Mayor had no power to designate someone else as the head, although the Mayor was permitted to delegate some or all of the duties to another by reason of section 50 of LA FOIP.5 In Review Report LA-2014-001, the Commissioner recommended to the Village of Killaly that, within 15 days of the Commissioner’s report, it clarify whether the Mayor would retain responsibility for LA FOIP or if some or all responsibility would be formally delegated to other officers of the Village pursuant to section 50. The Commissioner also noted that it appeared that the Village was laboring under the misapprehension that it was the Village Council that was vested with responsibility for LA FOIP compliance. The Commissioner clarified that it was the Mayor who was the designated “head” for all purposes of LA FOIP unless there was evidence of a section 50 delegation. In Review Report 143-2017, the Commissioner considered whether the Reeve was the head of the Rural Municipality of Blaine Lake #434 for purposes of LA FOIP. The Reeve had argued that according to The Municipalities Act, the Reeve did not have any authority or power to provide written notice to the applicant under LA FOIP. The Reeve indicated that he only 5 Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner (SK OIPC) Review Report LA-2013004 at [25].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==