Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 117 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. The Commissioner considered section 16(1)(a) of LA FOIP in Review Report 204-2023. In that case the Petition in question was covered with notes from the local authority CAO. The notes were considered by the Commissioner and they were found to have been made with the purpose of an analysis of the validity of the petition signatures and whether they complied with the requirements of The Municipalities Act. The handwritten notes indicated the reasons why the signatures were found to be non-compliant with the Act. This exercise was done in order to analyze the information submitted and was used to influence the Town’s decision regarding the submitted petition. The Town’s decision to withhold the entire Petition pursuant to section 16(1)(a) of LA FOIP was upheld by the Commissioner. In Tarasoff v Saskatoon (City), 2025 SKKB 41 at paragraphs [51] to [54]. The Court disagreed with the Commissioner’s finding that CSWB was not a committee of the City. In fact, the Court analyzed the creation of CSWB and found that it was established as a working group to develop advice and recommendations for the City’s benefit. To the extent that CSWB was external to the City at any given point in time was only to attract participation and engagement of other parties and to encourage the flow of information directly to the City. There was no question that the intent was that CSWB would work in private and its information would flow in circumstances of confidentiality to the City.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==