Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 114 Commissioner found that some of the records to which the City applied subsection 16(1)(a) of LA FOIP did not apply because the City did not meet the first part of the test. One document contained a message that one employee asking another to review a document, but the Commissioner was not convinced the document contained advice, recommendations or analyses. Another document was a briefing note intended for the Mayor. The Commissioner found the briefing note contained information that was factual, or that did not necessarily contain recommendations, analyses or proposals intended for taking action. For the remainder of the records, the Commissioner found subsection 16(1)(a) of LA FOIP applied because the records contained advice made from one person to another, and because, according to the second part of the test, they were created by someone who was qualified to provide advice to a person who could take or implement the action. In its submission, the City indicated who the individual providing the advice and taking and implementing the action were, and their connection to the local authority. Subsection 16(1)(b) 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: … (b) consultations or deliberations involving officers or employees of the local authority; … Subsection 16(1)(b) 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 consultations or deliberations involving officers or employees of a local authority. The provision is intended to allow persons having the responsibility to make decisions to freely discuss the issues before them in order to arrive at well-reasoned decisions. The intent is to allow such persons to address an issue without fear of being wrong, looking bad or appearing foolish if their frank deliberations were to be made public.421 421 AB IPC Orders 96-006 at p. 10 and F2004-026 at p. 16. Alberta’s subsection 14(1)(b) of Alberta’s FOIP is substantially similar to Saskatchewan’s subsection 16(1)(b) of LA FOIP.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==