Guide to LA FOIP-Chapter 4

Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 107 When determining the application of section 16 of LA FOIP, local authorities should keep the intention of the Legislature for provisions like section 16 in mind along with the purposes of LA FOIP. For more on this, go to Balancing Interests under the heading titled, Interpreting Exemptions earlier in this Chapter. In addition, see the Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 1, “Purposes and Scope of LA FOIP”, under the heading, The Purposes of LA FOIP. Subsection 16(1)(a) Advice from officials 16(1) Subject to subsection (2), a head may refuse to give access to a record that could reasonably be expected to disclose: (a) advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options developed by or for the local authority; Subsection 16(1)(a) of LA FOIP is a discretionary class-based exemption. It permits refusal of access in situations where release of a record could reasonably be expected to disclose advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options developed by or for a local authority. The following two-part test can be applied:387 1. Does the information qualify as advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses, or policy options? Advice is guidance offered by one person to another.388 It can include the analysis of a situation or issue that may require action and the presentation of options for future action, but not the presentation of facts.389 Advice encompasses material that permits the drawing of inferences with respect to a suggested course of action, but which does not itself make a 387 Between June and October 2019, the Commissioner modified the original three-part test and the definitions associated with subsection 16(1)(a) in consideration of two court decisions, Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 and Hande v University of Saskatchewan, QBG 1222 of 2018 May 21, 2019. The first report where the Commissioner brought forward both the new two-part test and the modified definitions was SK OIPC Review Report 244-2018. 388 Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at p. 67. 389 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, pp. 166 and 179. The SK OIPC relied on this definition for the first time in Review Report LA-2010-001 at [28]. Also relied on in SK OIPC Review Report F-2014-001 at [282].

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==