Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 150 language is used in access to information statutes. As the Court in Merck Frosst emphasized, the statute tries to mark out a middle ground between that which is probable and that which is merely possible. An institution must provide evidence “well beyond” or “considerably above” a mere possibility of harm in order to reach that middle ground: paras. 197 and 199. This inquiry of course is contextual and how much evidence and the quality of evidence needed to meet this standard will ultimately depend on the nature of the issue and “inherent probabilities or improbabilities or the seriousness of the allegations or consequences”… A local authority cannot rely on subsection 17(1)(b) of LA FOIP for a record that fits within the enumerated exclusions listed at subsection 17(2) of LA FOIP. Before applying subsection 17(1) of LA FOIP, local authorities should ensure that subsection 17(2) of LA FOIP does not apply to any of the records. IPC Findings In Review Report 185-2016, the Commissioner considered an equivalent subsection of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). An applicant made an access to information request to Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower) for a copy of the CO2 supply agreement between SaskPower and Cenovus. SaskPower responded to the applicant advising that the supply agreement was being withheld in full pursuant to several exemptions including subsection 18(1)(b) of FOIP. The records withheld included an original Carbon Dioxide Purchase and Sale Agreement between SaskPower and Cenovus and two amending agreements. SaskPower applied subsection 18(1)(b) of FOIP to all of the records asserting it was financial, commercial, and scientific information. Upon review, the Commissioner agreed that the information was commercial information. Furthermore, the Commissioner found that SaskPower had a right to use the information. However, the Commissioner found the third part of the test was not met. The Commissioner was not persuaded that the contract itself would have any monetary value for SaskPower. In coming to this finding, the Commissioner noted that SaskPower had only demonstrated that other organizations would find monetary value in the contract. As all three parts of the test were not met, the Commissioner found that subsection 18(1)(b) of FOIP did not apply to the record. In Schiller v Saskatchewan Health Authority, 2025 SKKB 37 at paragraphs [59] to [70]. The Court reviewed the three part test under section 17(1)(b). In that case usernames, passwords, file path addresses, and barcodes were properly determined to be “technical information” as per the first part of the test. That information provides access to sensitive information, personal health information and security information as well as user credentials and is information that the SHA has a substantial interest in protecting from misappropriation by
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==