Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 144 information from misappropriation by others. [See, for example, Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd. (1989), 61 D.L.R. (4th) 14 (S.C.C.), and the cases discussed therein].520 Right of use means a legal, equitable or moral title or claim to the use of property, or authority to use.521 3. Does the information have monetary value for the local authority or is it reasonably likely to? Monetary value requires that the information itself have an intrinsic value.522 This may be demonstrated by evidence of potential for financial return to the local authority. An example of information that is reasonably likely to have monetary value might include a course developed by a teacher employed by a school board.523 The mere fact that the local authority incurred a cost to create the record does not mean it has monetary value for the purposes of this section.524 Reasonably likely to implies that the question be considered objectively. This means that there must be evidence that will, on a balance of probabilities, support the necessary finding.525 Section 17 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 some of the exemptions contained in section 17 of LA FOIP are not harms-based exemptions, the threshold provided by the Court for “could reasonably be expected to” is instructive: This Court in Merck Frosst adopted the “reasonable expectation of probable harm” formulation and it should be used wherever the “could reasonably be expected to” 520 Quoted initially in SK OIPC Review Report F-2005-006 at [12]. Later in SK OIPC Review Reports 1842016 at [35], 215 to 217-2016 at [19], 056-2017 at [60] and 086-2018 at [94]. 521 Adapted from The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Oxford University Press 1973, Volume 1 at p. 2582. 522 ON IPC Order P-219 at p. 17. Relied on in SK OIPC Review Report F-2005-00 at [27]. 523 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, p. 191. 524 ON IPC Order PO-3464-I at [51]. Relied on in SK OIPC Review Reports 056-2017 at [62], 039-2018 at [21] and 086-2018 at [95]. 525 Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Superior Propane Inc., 1996 CanLII 8 (CT) at [17].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==