Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 126 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 contractual or other negotiations (for example, draft versions).450 For the purpose of means intention; the immediate or initial purpose of something.451 A negotiation is a consensual bargaining process in which the parties attempt to reach agreement on a disputed or potentially disputed matter. It can also be defined as dealings conducted between two or more parties for the purpose of reaching an understanding.452 It connotes a more robust relationship than “consultation”. It signifies a measure of bargaining power and a process of back-and-forth, give-and-take discussion.453 The contractual or other negotiations can be concluded,454 ongoing or future negotiations.455 There must be a clear indication that the information was “developed for the purpose of” negotiations. There must be a clear indication that the negotiations were in mind when the record was developed.456 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 exemption. 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 subsection 16(1)(c) of LA FOIP is not a harms-based provision, the threshold provided by the Court for “could reasonably be expected to” is instructive: 450 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 for the advice/recommendations provision. 451 Gardner, J., and Gardner K. (2016) Sanagan’s Encyclopedia of Words and Phrases Legal Maxims, Canada, 5th Edition, Volume 2, C to H, at p. F-133. 452 Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at pp. 1248 and 1249. Relied on in SK OIPC Review Report 112-2018 at [37]. 453 Gordon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 ONCA 625 (CanLII) at [107]. Relied on in SK OIPC Review Report 112-2018 at [37]. 454 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Access to Information Manual, Chapter 11.18.5. Available at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/accessinformation/access-information-manual.html#cha11_18. Accessed July 10, 2019. Also consistent with Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, p. 181. 455 SK OIPC Review Report LA-2010-001 at [51]. 456 NU IPC Review Report 20-170 at p. 6.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==