Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 117 deliberations in a manner whereby no reasonable separation can be made, then the information is not factual material and can be withheld.432 The exemption does not generally apply to records or parts of records that in themselves reveal only that: • A consultation or deliberation took place at a particular time; • Particular persons were involved; or • A particular topic was involved.433 If releasing this information reveals the substance of the consultations or deliberations, the local authority can withhold this information.434 Where a review by the IPC occurs and this is the exception, the local authority should demonstrate how and why release of this type of information would reveal the substance of the consultations and/or deliberations.435 Consultations and deliberations can be revealed in two ways: 1. The information itself consists of consultations or deliberations. 2. The information, if disclosed, would permit the drawing of accurate inferences as to the nature of the actual consultations or deliberations.436 Subsection 16(1) of LA FOIP includes the requirement that access can be refused where it “could reasonably be expected to disclose” the protected information listed in the exemptions. The meaning of the phrase “could reasonably be expected to” in terms of harm-based exemptions was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Service) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), (2014). Although 432 Adapted from British Columbia Government Services, FOIPPA Policy and Procedures Manual at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/services-for-government/policiesprocedures/foippa-manual/policy-advice-recommendations. Accessed July 5, 2019. 433 AB IPC Order F2004-026 at [65] [71] and [76]. Adopted in SK OIPC Review Report F-2006-004 at [33]. Similar position in BC IPC Orders 01-25 at p. 8 and 193-1997 at p. 8. 434 AB IPC Order F2004-026 at [65]. 435 “There may be cases where some of the foregoing items reveal the content of the advice. However, that must be demonstrated for every case for which it is claimed”. See AB IPC Order F2004-026 at [71]. 436 ON IPC Orders PO-3470-R at [28], PO-2084 at p. 8 and PO-2028 at pp. 10 and 11, upheld on judicial review in Ontario (Ministry of Northern Development and Mines) v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] O.J. No. 163 (Div. Ct.), aff’d [2005] O.J. No. 4048 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 564. See also Order PO-1993 at p. 12, upheld on judicial review in Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2005] O.J. No. 4047 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 563.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==