Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 40 may be generated, or the process of disposing of records. As a result, their access to information requests may be unclear and they would be unsure how to articulate what they are looking for. Therefore, clarification of a request may involve assisting an applicant in defining the subject of the request, the specific kinds of records of interest, and the time period for which records are being requested.71 Local authorities have a duty to engage in the clarification process up to the point when a fee estimate is provided. However, a local authority has no obligation [or authority] to require clarification of a request that is, on its face, very clear.72 In terms of “narrowing” of an access to information request, it is important to discuss with an applicant any request that involves a large amount of information or is estimated to require a large amount of search time. The objective of narrowing a large request is to reduce fees for the applicant and for the provision of better service, in terms of both time and results. However, applicants are not required to narrow a request and refusing to narrow a broad request would generally not be considered an abuse of the right of access.73 IPC Findings In Review Report 301-2017, 302-2017, 303-2017, 304-2017, 003-2018 the Commissioner considered the application of subsection 6(1)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) by five separate ministries. The ministries initially did not process the applicant’s access to information requests citing subsection 6(1)(b) of FOIP. The ministries requested the applicant alter or narrow the access to information requests. The Commissioner noted that subsection 6(1)(b) of FOIP provides that an applicant’s request is to include time, place and event. After considering the applicant’s access to information requests, the Commissioner found that it included these elements. Therefore, the ministries had not appropriately applied subsection 6(1)(b) of FOIP and the access request was sufficiently clear to enable the ministries to identify the record(s) requested. In Disregard Decision 040-2022, 041-2022, 042-2022, the Commissioner considered an application from the Holy Family Roman Catholic Separate School Division No. 140 (Holy Family) to disregard an applicant’s three access to information requests. Holy Family asserted that the requests were repetitious, systematic, would unreasonably interfere with Holy Family’s operations, were an abuse of the right of access, were frivolous, vexatious and were not made in good faith pursuant to subsections 43.1(2)(a), (b) and (c) of LA FOIP. While 71 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 3 at p. 51. 72 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 3 at p. 52. 73 SK OIPC Disregard Decision 040-2022, 041-2022, 042-2022 at [58].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==