Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 160 IPC Findings In Disregard Decision 040-2022, 041-2022, 042-2022, the Commissioner considered an application from Holy Family Roman Catholic Separate School Division No. 140 (Holy Family) to disregard three access to information requests from an applicant. Holy Family asserted that the requests should be disregarded pursuant to subsections 43.1(2)(a), (b) and (c) of LA FOIP. The Commissioner found that Holy Family did not demonstrate that these subsections applied. Further, the Commissioner found that the application to disregard did not apply to the first two access to information requests because the application was outside the initial 30-day timeline. Therefore, the first two requests were in a state of deemed refusal. The Commissioner recommended Holy Family provide responsive records to the applicant subject to applicable exemptions. For the third access to information request, the Commissioner refused Holy Family’s application to disregard requiring it to proceed with processing the request within the remaining time available pursuant to subsection 7(2) of LA FOIP. In Disregard Decision 181-2021, 182-2021, the Commissioner considered an application from Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) to disregard two access to information requests from an applicant. SGI asserted that the two access to information requests should be disregarded on the grounds that the requests amounted to an abuse of the right of access pursuant to the equivalent subsections in The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) (subsections 45.1(2)(b) and (c)). Specifically, SGI asserted the access to information requests were vexatious and not submitted in good faith. The Commissioner considered subsection 45.12(2)(c) of FOIP first at the request of SGI. While considering the application, the Commissioner noted that it was not the first disregard application from SGI involving the applicant and that the Commissioner had previously issued three disregard decisions and one Review Report. In each of the disregard cases, the Commissioner found the applicant’s conduct amounted to an abuse of the right of access. The current disregard application would be the fourth from SGI involving the applicant. Considering this and the additional arguments submitted by SGI in this case, the Commissioner found that SGI had established reasonable grounds for finding the applicant’s two requests were vexatious and not made in good faith within the meaning of subsection 45.1(2)(c) of FOIP. As a result of this finding, the Commissioner did not need to consider subsection 45.1(2)(b) of FOIP. However, the Commissioner noted that in the past three disregard decisions involving the applicant and SGI, the Commissioner had found that subsection 45.1(2)(b) of FOIP applied because of the applicant’s conduct and as the circumstances in the present case were similar, it would likely result in a similar finding. Most notable in this disregard decision, is the Commissioner went further with the decision for the first time. The Commissioner was concerned with the cost and inefficiency of the multiple applications to disregard being
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==