Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 180 • Is the information available from sources to which the public has access.648 • Does the local authority have any internal policies or procedures that speak to how records such as the one in question are to be handled confidentially. • Was there a mutual understanding that the information would be held in confidence. Mutual understanding means that the local authority and the third party both had the same understanding regarding the confidentiality of the information at the time it was supplied. If one party intends the information to be kept confidential but the other does not, the information is not considered to have been supplied in confidence. However, mutual understanding alone is not sufficient. Additional factors must exist in addition.649 The preceding factors are not a test but rather guidance on factors to consider. It is not an exhaustive list. Each case will require different supporting arguments. The bare assertion that the information was supplied implicitly in confidence would not be sufficient.650 Factors to consider when determining if a document was supplied in confidence explicitly include (not exhaustive): • The existence of an express condition of confidentiality between the local authority and the third party.651 • The fact that the local authority requested the information be supplied in a sealed envelope and/or outlined its confidentiality intentions to the third party prior to the information being supplied.652 The preceding factors are not a test but rather guidance on factors to consider. It is not an exhaustive list. Each case will require different supporting arguments. The Federal Court has summarized the following in terms of what is considered confidential: • It is an objective standard (based on facts); • It is not sufficient that the third party state, without further evidence, that the information is confidential; 648 ON IPC Orders PO-2273 at p. 8, PO-2283 at p. 10. 649 Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), 2001 FCT 556 at [40], SK OIPC Review Reports F-2006-002 at [52], LA-2013-002 at [58] to [59], ON IPC Order MO-1896 at p. 8, BC IPC Order F-11-08 at [32]. 650 SK OIPC Review Report LA-2013-002 at [60]. 651 SK OIPC Review Reports F-2006-002 at [56], LA-2013-003 at [113], F-2014-002 at [47], PEI IPC Order 03-006 at p. 5, AB IPC Orders 97-013 at [23] to [24], 2001-008 at [54]. 652 SK OIPC Review Reports F-2006-002 at [56], F-2012-001/LA-2012-001 at [29], LA-2013-002 at [49], LA-2013-003 at [113], F-2014-002 at [47]; PEI IPC Order 03-006 at p. 5; AB IPC Order 97-013 at [25].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==