Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 27 • The request itself sets out the boundaries of relevancy and circumscribes the records or information that will ultimately be identified as being responsive. • A local authority can remove information as not responsive only if the applicant has requested specific information, such as the applicant’s own personal information. • The local authority may treat portions of a record as not responsive if they are clearly separate and distinct and entirely unrelated to the access request. However, use it sparingly and only where necessary. • If it is just as easy to release the information as it is to claim not responsive, the information should be released (i.e., releasing the information will not involve time consuming consultations nor considerable time weighing discretionary exemptions). • The purpose of LA FOIP is best served when a local authority adopts a liberal interpretation of a request. If it is unclear what the applicant wants, a local authority should contact the applicant for clarification. Generally, ambiguity in the request should be resolved in the applicant’s favour.44 IPC Findings In Review Report 031-2017 Part II, 229-2017, the Commissioner considered if the Rural Municipality of Rosthern (RM) was withholding a record that was responsive. The record was an email with two attachments. The RM initially identified the record as responsive and applied subsection 21(1)(a) of LA FOIP to it, but later changed its mind and stated the record was not responsive. The Commissioner found that even though the record did not contain the applicant’s name, the record nonetheless related to the applicant. The Commissioner found the record was responsive. In Review Report 016-2014, the Commissioner considered whether information removed from a record by the Ministry of Education was not responsive to the applicant’s access to information request. The applicant had requested any record held by several Deputy and Assistant Deputy Ministers and a specific unit within the Ministry of Education that mentioned the applicant’s name between January 2013 and December 2013. The Commissioner found that some of the information deemed not responsive by the Ministry of Education was indeed responsive. Furthermore, the Commissioner also found that some information deemed not responsive was appropriately removed, as the applicant’s access to information request was very specific. The Commissioner recommended that the information found to be responsive be released to the applicant. 44 ON IPC Order PO-3492 at [15].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==