Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 131 16(1)(e) of LA FOIP, local authorities should ensure that subsection 16(2) of LA FOIP does not apply to any of the records. IPC Findings In Review Report 158-2018, the Commissioner considered subsection 16(1)(e) of LA FOIP. An applicant made an access to information request to the University of Regina (University) for recordings pertaining to the elimination of athletic programs. The Commissioner was satisfied that the information contained in PowerPoint presentations was budgetary information belonging to the University. However, the Commissioner also found that the University failed to demonstrate how the budget information was still pending. That is, several budget cycles appeared to have elapsed since the time of the access to information request, and decisions had already been made, so there was question as to whether or not the budget information in the record was still pending. As such, the Commissioner found that subsection 16(1)(e) of LA FOIP did not apply. In Review Report 086-2018, the Commissioner considered an equivalent subsection in The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). An applicant made an access to information request to the Ministry of Health (Health) for information pertaining to the Ministry of Health EMS Working Group. Health responded to the applicant by providing 1,697 pages. Some of the information in the pages was withheld pursuant to several provisions in FOIP including subsection 17(1)(g). Health applied the exemption to three pages of the record. In its submission to the IPC, Health asserted that the information pertained to budget development for a government institution regarding pending plans and projects that pertained to budgetary decisions. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the pages concerned the 2009-2010 budget and that decisions regarding the 2009-2010 budget had already been made. As such, the decisions were no longer pending. The Commissioner found the second part of the test was not met and subsection 17(1)(g) of FOIP was found not to apply.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==