Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 128 did not appear to contain plans but rather opinions, feelings, and thoughts of employees. The Commissioner recommended these pages be released to the applicant. Furthermore, the Commissioner found that the remaining pages met the first part of the test because they contained plans as defined. The notes referred to different staffing requirements and costs for different positions. The Commissioner also found that the second part of the test was met because the pages referred to the management of personnel. Finally, the Commissioner found that the third part of the test was met because the plans had not yet been implemented. As such, the Commissioner found that the U of R established that subsection 16(1)(d) of LA FOIP applied to the pages. The Commissioner recommended that the pages continue to be withheld. Subsection 16(1)(e) 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: … (e) information, including the proposed plans, policies or projects of a local authority, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in disclosure of a pending policy or budgetary decision. Subsection 16(1)(e) 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 information, including the proposed plans, policies or projects of a local authority, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in disclosure of a pending policy or budgetary decision. The provision allows local authorities to prevent premature disclosure of a policy or budgetary decision. Once a policy or budgetary decision has been taken and is being implemented, the information can no longer be withheld under this exemption. A decision has been implemented once those expected to carry out the activity have been authorized and instructed to do so.475 The following two-part test can be applied: 475 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, pp. 182 to 183. Alberta’s subsection 24(1)(g) is substantially similar to Saskatchewan’s provision.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==