Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 158 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”…552 The local authority does not have to prove that a harm is probable but needs to show that there is a “reasonable expectation of harm” if any of the information were to be released. In British Columbia (Minister of Citizens’ Service) v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), (2012), Bracken J. confirmed it is the release of the information itself that must give rise to a reasonable expectation of harm. Local authorities should not assume that the harm is self-evident. The harm must be described in a precise and specific way in order to support the application of the provision. The expectation of harm must be reasonable, but it need not be a certainty. The evidence of harm must: • Show how the disclosure of the information would cause harm; • Indicate the extent of harm that would result; and • Provide facts to support the assertions made.553 Exemption from disclosure should not be granted on the basis of fear of harm that is fanciful, imaginary, or contrived. Such fears of harm are not reasonable because they are not based on reason…the words “could reasonably be expected” “refer to an expectation for which real and substantial grounds exist when looked at objectively”…554 When determining whether disclosure could interfere with contractual or other negotiations of the local authority, the following questions can be asked to assist: • What negotiations would be affected by disclosure. • Are these negotiations ongoing. • Have the negotiations been concluded. • At what stage are the negotiations. • How long have they been going on. • What is the subject matter of the negotiations. 552 Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2014] 1 SCR 674, 2014 SCC 31 (CanLII) at [54]. 553 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Access to Information Manual, Chapter 11.14.4. Available at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/accessinformation/access-information-manual.html#cha11_14. Accessed August 29, 2019. 554 Canadian Bank Note Limited v Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2016 SKQB 362 (CanLII) at [49] relying on Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), [2012] 1 SCR 23, 2012 SCC 3 (CanLII) at [204].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==