Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 111 engaging the stakeholder (even if not paid) in an advisory role and there would be a sufficient close connection to the local authority.409 Use of the word “developed” suggests the Legislature’s intention was for the provision to include information generated in the process leading up to the giving of advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options (for example, draft versions).410 Drafts and redrafts of advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses and/or policy options may be protected by the exemption. An official may engage in writing any number of drafts before communicating part or all of their content to another person. The nature of the deliberative process is to draft and redraft advice or recommendations until the writer is sufficiently satisfied that they are prepared to communicate the results to someone else. All the information in those earlier drafts informs the end result even if the content of any one draft is not included in the final version.411 The information does not have to have arrived at the person who can take or implement the action in order to qualify as advice, recommendations, proposals, analyses and/or policy options.412 The provision is not meant to protect the bare recitation of facts, without anything further.413 The provision should be reserved for the opinion, policy, or normative elements of advice, and should not be extended to the facts on which it is based. The exception is where the advice and facts may be so intertwined as to preclude release.414 Factual material means a cohesive body of facts, which are distinct from advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses and/or policy options. It does not refer to isolated statements of fact, or to the analyses of the factual material. Factual material refers specifically to 409 AB IPC Order F2008-008 at [42] to [44]. Relied on in SK OIPC Review Reports F-2010-001 at [81] and LA-2011-001 at [66]. 410 Ontario (Ministry of Northern Development and Mines) v. Mitchinson, 2004 CanLII 15009 (ON SCDC) at [56]. Justice Dunnet found that inclusion of this word changed the meaning in the federal and British Columbia legislation compared to Ontario’s FOIP legislation that did not include this word. 411 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [48] to [51]. 412 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [48] to [51]. 413 Originated from AB IPC Order 96-006 at p. 10. Relied on in Office of the Nunavut Information and Privacy Commissioner (Nu IPC) Review Report 17-131 at p. 6. Office of the Northwest Territories Information and Privacy Commissioner (NWT IPC) Review Report 06-055 at p. 7. Relied on in SK OIPC Review Reports LA-2007-001 at [54], LA-2011-001 at [58] and F-2014-001 at [279]. 414 3430901 Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Industry), [2002] 1 FC 421, 2001 FCA 254 (CanLII) at [55]. Also see AB IPC Order 99-001 and Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, p. 179.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==