Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 177 Information gathered by local authority inspectors via their own observations does not qualify as information “supplied” to the local authority. Judgements or conclusions expressed by officials based on their own observations generally cannot be said to be information supplied by a third party.630 Records can still be “supplied” even when they originate with the local authority (i.e., the records still may contain or repeat information extracted from documents supplied by the third party). However, the third party objecting to disclosure will have to prove that the information originated with it and that it is confidential.631 Whether confidential information has been “supplied” to a local authority by a third party is a question of fact. The content rather than the form of the information must be considered: the mere fact that the information appears in a local authority document does not, on its own, resolve the issue.632 The following are examples of information not supplied by a third party: • Information that reflects the viewpoints, opinions, or comments of local authority officials; • Reports resulting from factual observations made by local authority inspectors; and • The terms of a lease negotiated between a third party and a local authority.633 The contents of a contract involving a local authority and a third party will not normally qualify as having been supplied by a third party. The provisions of a contract, in general, have been treated as mutually generated, rather than “supplied” by the third party, even where the contract is preceded by little or no negotiation or where the final agreement reflects information that originated from a single party.634 630 Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), [2012] 1 SCR 23, 2012 SCC 3 (CanLII) at [156] and [158]. 631 Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), [2012] 1 SCR 23, 2012 SCC 3 (CanLII) at [157]. 632 Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), [2012] 1 SCR 23, 2012 SCC 3 (CanLII) at [158]. 633 Halifax Developments Ltd. v. Minister of Public Works (994), F.C.J. No. 2035 (QL) (F.C.T.D.). Also, in Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Access to Information Manual, Chapter 11.14.3. Available at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/accessinformation/access-information-manual.html#cha11_14. Accessed August 21, 2019. 634 Originated in 2002 ON IPC Order PO-2018. The language above is drawn from the most recent 2019 ON Order PO-3974 at [42]. First relied on in SK OIPC Review Report F-2005-003 at [17]. Several court decisions support this approach. See Boeing C. v. Ontario (Ministry of Economic Development and Trade), 2005 CanLII 24249 (ON SCDC), [2005] O.J. 2851, Canadian Medical Protective Association v. John Doe, 2008 CanLII 45005 (ON SCDC), [2008] O.J. No. 3475, Canadian Pacific Railway v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2002 BCSC 603 (CanLII), Canada Post Corp. v. National Capital Commission,(2002), 2002 FCT 700 (CanLII), Halifax Development Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==