Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 13 • The decision failed to take into account relevant considerations.25 When a local authority exercises its statutory discretion in a manner that results in information being withheld from disclosure, that discretion is properly reviewed by the Commissioner.26 During a review of a discretionary exemption, the Commissioner may recommend that the head of the local authority reconsider its exercise of discretion if the Commissioner feels one of these factors played a part in the original decision to withhold records. However, the Commissioner will not substitute their own discretion for that of the head.27 IPC Findings In Review Report 157-2019, the Commissioner recommended the Saskatoon Police Service (SPS) reconsider its exercise of discretion in withholding parts of a record that would reveal information pursuant to subsection 14(1)(k) of LA FOIP. In making this recommendation, the Commissioner asked SPS, and public bodies in general, to consider if information is sensitive when deciding to sever information, particularly if the public body takes a blanket approach. In Review Report 086-2018, the Commissioner recommended the Ministry of Health reconsider its exercise of discretion in withholding a record that would reveal the content of draft or subordinate legislation (subsection 17(1)(e) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act). In making this recommendation, the Commissioner noted that the record was 14 years old, and the specific piece of legislation had been amended five times since the record was created. Public Interest Override LA FOIP does not contain an overarching public interest override which would require that information be disclosed in all cases where the general public interest in disclosure outweighs the specific interest which is intended to be protected by the exempting provision. Rather, 25 Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association, 2010 SCC 23 at [71], referenced in SK OIPC Review Report 305-2016 at [37]. The Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario have also relied on these four factors. 26 Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association, 2010 SCC 23 at [68] to [74]. Referenced in the Office of the British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner (BC IPC) Decision F10-08 at [41]. 27 SK OIPC Review Report 305-2016 at [38].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==