Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 56 Subsection 7(2)(d) of LA FOIP requires a reasonable degree of transparency as to the decision of the local authority such that the applicant can understand the basis for the denial of access.93 The Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, “Exemptions from the Right of Access” provides guidance on determining whether an exemption under Part III of LA FOIP applies to a record or information in a record. Subsection 5.1(1) of LA FOIP requires local authorities to respond to applicants openly, accurately, and completely. If a local authority removes information from a responsive document because it has been deemed not responsive, it should advise the applicant in its section 7 response and explain why.94 IPC Findings In Review Report 283-2018 concerning the Town of Kindersley (the Town), the Commissioner considered if the town followed subsection 7(2)(d) of LA FOIP when responding to the applicant. In its submission to the Commissioner, the Town discussed correspondence they were withholding from the applicant but did not advise the applicant of the reasons for withholding the records. Upon review of the records, the Commissioner determined that the records in question were responsive to the access request and should have been provided to the applicant with any applicable exemptions applied. As a result, the Commissioner found that the Town did not meet its obligation pursuant to subsection 7(2)(d) of LA FOIP. In Review Report F-2006-003, the Commissioner considered the equivalent provision in The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Commissioner considered whether the Ministry of Justice (Justice) complied with the requirements of subsection 7(2)(d) of FOIP. The applicant had requested copies of Civil Law Division billable hours for 2002 and 2003. In addition, the applicant requested copies of private legal billings for 2002, 2003 and 2004. Justice responded to the applicant indicating that access was refused in part and provided a severed version of the record. The Commissioner found that Justice’s minimal notice of refusal did not satisfy the requirements of subsection 7(2)(d) of FOIP. In particular, Justice’s response did not set out the reason for the refusal or identify specific provisions under FOIP it was relying on. 93 SK OIPC Review Report F-2006-003 at [25]. 94 SK OIPC Review Reports 061-2017 at [82] and 023-2017 & 078-2017 at [39] and [40].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==