Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 98 • The action of deliberating (to deliberate: to weigh in mind; to consider carefully with a view to a decision; to think over); careful consideration with a view to a decision. • The consideration and discussions of the reasons for and against a measure by a number of councillors.373 A deliberation can occur when there is a discussion or consideration of the reasons for or against an action.374 It can refer to discussions conducted with a view towards making a decision.375 Agendas and substance of deliberations of meetings can be revealed in two ways: 1. The information itself consists of agendas or meeting minutes. 2. The information, if disclosed, would permit the drawing of accurate inferences as to the content of the actual agendas or meeting minutes.376 Records that would permit the drawing of accurate inferences with respect to the substance of deliberations of the meeting could also qualify. The content of in camera minutes (i.e., what matters were discussed), views council members expressed about those matters and how they voted would generally be caught by the exemption. 373 Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Toronto Port Authority, 2016 FC 683 (CanLII) at [85]. The Federal Court of Canada relied on the definitions found in the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Access to Information Manual which were based on the ordinary meaning of these words. The manual can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-informationprivacy/access-information/access-information-manual.html#cha11. Definition consistent with The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Oxford University Press 1973, Volume 1 at p. 409. Similar definition used in R. v. McDonald, 2003 NSPC 34 (CanLII) at p. 3 and Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of the Environment), [2007] 3 FCR 125, 2006 FC 1235 (CanLII) at [65] and [66]. 374 AB IPC Order 96-006 at p. 10. Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 180. Adopted in SK OIPC Review Report F-2004-001 at [12]. 375 Originated from ON IPC Order M-184 at p. 3. Adopted in SK OIPC Review Report 187-2015 at [19]. 376 Adapted from ON IPC Orders PO-3470-R at [28], PO-2084 at p. 8 and PO-2028 at pp. 10 and 11, upheld on judicial review in Ontario (Ministry of Northern Development and Mines) v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] O.J. No. 163 (Div. Ct.), aff’d [2005] O.J. No. 4048 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 564. See also Order PO-1993 at p. 12, upheld on judicial review in Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2005] O.J. No. 4047 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 563.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==