Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 132 nature of the issue and “inherent probabilities or improbabilities or the seriousness of the allegations or consequences”… A local authority cannot rely on subsection 16(1)(d) of LA FOIP for a record that fits within the enumerated exclusions listed at subsection 16(2) of LA FOIP. Before applying subsection 16(1) 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 166-2018, the Commissioner considered the equivalent provision in The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). An applicant had made an access to information request to the Saskatchewan Legal Aid Commission (SLAC) for any proposals and correspondence related to proposals prepared by SLAC that called for the closure of the Saskatoon Legal Aid office. The SLAC responded to the applicant advising that it was denying access to all of the records citing several provisions under FOIP including subsection 17(1)(d). The record consisted of 843 pages of records including emails and drafts of proposed plans. Upon review, the Commissioner found that subsection 17(1)(d) of FOIP did not apply to the records because the proposed plans had been replaced with a different plan. It was not clear that the plan was intended to be implemented anymore. In Review Report LA-2014-004, the Commissioner considered subsection 16(1)(d) of LA FOIP. An applicant had made an access to information request to the University of Regina (U of R) for any records where the applicant had been discussed or mentioned during meetings that occurred over three dates. The U of R responded to the applicant advising that all of the records were withheld pursuant to subsections 14(1)(d) and 16(1)(d) of LA FOIP. The record consisted of 40 pages of notes taken during the meetings responsive to the applicant’s access to information request. Upon review, the Commissioner found that 13 of the 40 pages 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.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==