Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 183 are maturity, economic status (i.e., self-supporting, or not), living arrangements and mental state.326 Social workers, teachers and guidance counsellors can run into this problem. Parents may want all the information, but that information could include information on pregnancy, drug addiction, sexually transmitted disease, contemplated suicide, contemplated leaving home or commission of a crime. In these instances, the professional involved, their supervisor or the head must consider very carefully the words “unreasonable invasion of privacy”.327 If the child verbally or in writing tells the professional that the child has shared the information in confidence and does not want his or her parents to know, it is important that the professional takes that into consideration in determining whether there would be an “unreasonable invasion of privacy” when disclosing the information to a legal decision-maker. Where the head determines it is not an unreasonable invasion of privacy, the legal decisionmaker can sign on behalf of the child. IPC Findings In Investigation Report 083-2022, the Commissioner investigated an alleged breach of privacy involving St. Paul's Roman Catholic Separate School Division #20 (St. Paul’s). The complainant was the mother of two children. The complainant alleged that disclosure of the children’s personal information to the children’s stepmother was a breach of the children’s privacy. Part of that investigation involved considering subsection 49(d) of LA FOIP. The mother and father had joint legal decision-making for the children via an agreement pursuant to subsection 3(3) of The Children’s Law Act, 2020. The Commissioner found that both parents had equal responsibility for and were entitled to communicate with the children’s school. Therefore, both parents had equal rights to exercise the powers and rights of the children under subsection 49(d) of LA FOIP. Furthermore, that subsection 49(d) of LA FOIP should not be interpreted to permit one equally ranked substitute decision-maker to override the decision of the other equally ranked substitute decision-maker. This is particularly the case where the substitute decision-makers share rights as joint custodians. Without an agreement, court order, or other evidence that one decision-maker’s views should prevail in a conflict, a head should not rely on the consent of one joint decision-maker where the other joint decision-maker objects. The Commissioner also clarified that there was no requirement for a local authority to canvass the views of every substitute decision-maker who is equally ranked to satisfy itself that it has the requisite authority. However, where a 326 SK OIPC Investigation Report 083-2022 at [44]. 327 SK OIPC Blog, UPDATED: Who Signs for a Child? February 15, 2018.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==