Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 108 specific recommendation. It can be an implied recommendation.390 The “pros and cons” of various options also qualify as advice.391 It should not be given a restricted meaning. Rather, it should be interpreted to include an opinion that involves exercising judgement and skill in weighing the significance of fact. It includes expert opinion on matters of fact on which a local authority must make a decision for future action.392 Advice includes the views or opinions of a public servant as to the range of policy options to be considered by the decision maker even if they do not include a specific recommendation on which option to take.393 Advice has a broader meaning than recommendations.394 The legislative intention was for advice to have a distinct meaning from recommendations. Otherwise, it would be redundant.395 While “recommendation” is an express suggestion, “advice” is simply an implied recommendation.396 A recommendation is a specific piece of advice about what to do, especially when given officially; it is a suggestion that someone should choose a particular thing or person that one thinks particularly good or meritorious.397 Recommendations relate to a suggested course of action more explicitly and pointedly than “advice”.398 It can include material that relates to a suggested course of action that will ultimately be accepted or rejected by the person being 390 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [26]. Relied on by Justice Danyliuk in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [77]. 391 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [47]. Relied on in ON IPC Order PO-3470-R at [21]. 392 College of Physicians of B.C. v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2002 BCCA 665 (CanLII) at [113] to [114]. 393 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [26] and [47]. Relied on in ON IPC Order PO-3799 at [29]. It should be noted that this is based on Ontario’s FOIP subsection 13(1), which does not include “policy options” in its wording. Saskatchewan’s LA FOIP includes ‘policy options’ in its wording as a separate type of information. 394 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [22] and [24]. Relied on by Justice Danyliuk in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [77]. 395 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [24]. Relied on by Justice Danyliuk in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [77]. 396 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [22]. Relied on by Justice Danyliuk in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [77] and Justice Gabrielson in Hande v University of Saskatchewan, QBG 1222 of 2018 at [41]. 397 Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at p. 1526. 398 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [22]. Relied on by Justice Danyliuk in Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [77] and Justice Gabrielson in Hande v University of Saskatchewan, QBG 1222 of 2018 at [41].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==