Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 177 of motive or occupation. The only way motivation could be relevant is in order to establish a reasonable expectation of harm to third parties [subsection 18(1)(c) of LA FOIP].616 Subsection 18(1)(a) Third party information 18(1) Subject to Part V and this section, a head shall refuse to give access to a record that contains: (a) trade secrets of a third party; … (2) A head may give access to a record that contains information described in subsection (1) with the written consent of the third party to whom the information relates. (3) Subject to Part V, a head may give access to a record that contains information described in clauses (1)(b) to (d) if: (a) disclosure of that information could reasonably be expected to be in the public interest as it relates to public health, public safety or protection of the environment; and (b) the public interest in disclosure could reasonably be expected to clearly outweigh in importance any: (i) financial loss or gain to; (ii) prejudice to the competitive position of; or (iii) interference with contractual or other negotiations of; a third party. Subsection 18(1)(a) of LA FOIP is a mandatory, class-based exemption. It permits refusal of access in situations where a record contains the trade secrets of a third party. The following test can be applied: 616 Intercontinental Packers Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) (1987), 14 F.T.R. 142 (T.D.), affirmed (1988), 87 N.R. 99 (Fed. C.A.) at [145].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==