Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 24 (b) Would a well-informed person, considering all the circumstances, reasonably perceive a conflict of interest on the part of the decision-maker.37 IPC Findings In Review Report F-2014-007, the Commissioner reviewed a denial of access by the Ministry of Justice (Justice). An applicant sought all records containing the name of an individual written, processed or possessed by a specific government employee. Justice responded indicating it did not have any responsive records. The applicant requested the Commissioner review Justice’s decision. In its submission to the Commissioner, Justice asserted that any responsive records were the personal records of the government employee which it described as emails. Furthermore, Justice asserted that it did not have possession or control of the records. Upon review, the Commissioner determined that the applicant was a family member of the government employee. Furthermore, that there was a family feud occurring. The Commissioner found that the emails responsive to the access to information request were not related in any way to the government employee’s work functions or government business. The records were personal emails sent and received using the employee’s government assigned email address. After considering 15 factors38, the Commissioner found that Justice did not have possession or control of the records. In Review Report 023-2020, 027-2020 Part I, the Commissioner reviewed a denial of access involving the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General (Justice). An applicant sought records related to an automobile accident for which a Justice employee’s daughter was involved. A search for records indicated one responsive record which Justice withheld pursuant to section 22 of FOIP. In addition, Justice indicated that other responsive records were not in Justice’s possession or control. The applicant sought a review of this decision by the Commissioner. In its submission to the Commissioner, Justice asserted that the employee, whose daughter was involved in the accident, was asked to search their government email account for responsive records. The employee reported finding responsive records but asserted the records were not work related but rather personal and private. Justice accepted this response and provided the Commissioner with a sworn affidavit from the employee asserting same. The applicant raised concerns with the Commissioner that charges related to the accident were withdrawn at Traffic Safety Court by the Prosecutor and the applicant questioned whether the connection the other driver had to Justice played a factor in that. The Commissioner considered whether there was a conflict of interest for the employee and whether it was appropriate for the 37 ON IPC Order MO-2867 at [22]. See also SK OIPC Review Report 023-2020, 027-2020, Part I, at [37]. 38 For the 15 factors, see the Guide to FOIP, Chapter 1, “Purposes and Scope of FOIP” under Section 5: Possession or Control.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==