Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 144 Subsection 39(1) of LA FOIP provides that where the Commissioner is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to conduct a review on any matter set out in section 38 of LA FOIP, the Commissioner will conduct a review. IPC Findings In Review Report 023-2017 & 078-2017, the Commissioner considered the issue of nonresponsive information. SaskPower had removed portions of two documents based on its interpretation of the applicant’s access to information request. Upon review, SaskPower asserted that the applicant did not have an “unfettered right to a review” by the Commissioner and the Commissioner must first be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to review. SaskPower further argued that there were no reasonable grounds to review whether the entirety of the documents were responsive to the access request. The Commissioner reminded SaskPower that subsection 7(2)(d) of FOIP required government institutions to set out the reason for refusal and identify the specific provision of FOIP on which refusal is based. Furthermore, there was no explicit authority in FOIP to redact records as “non responsive”. Finally, that the Commissioner currently accepts the application of “nonresponsive” to information in records, however, the practice may be reconsidered if its application by government institutions is counter to the purposes of FOIP. The Commissioner found that there were reasonable grounds to review the issue of “non-responsive”. The Commissioner recommended that when SaskPower removes information from documents that it include an explanation in its responses to applicants. Subsection 39(2) Review or refusal to review 39(2) The commissioner may refuse to conduct a review or may discontinue a review if, in the opinion of the commissioner, the application for review: (a) is frivolous or vexatious; (a.1) does not affect the applicant or individual personally; (a.2) has not moved forward as the applicant or individual has failed to respond to the requests of the commissioner; (a.3) concerns a local authority that has an internal review process that has not been used; (a.4) concerns a professional who is governed by a professional body that regulates its members pursuant to an Act, and a complaints procedure available through the professional body has not been used;
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==