Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 182 Contractors setting out to win local authority contracts through a confidential bidding process should not expect that the monetary terms, in the event that the bid succeeds, will remain confidential. The public’s right to know how a local authority spends public funds as a means of holding the local authority accountable for its expenditures is a fundamental notion of responsible government that is known to all.657 Simply labelling documents as “confidential” does not, on its own, make the documents confidential (i.e., confidentiality stamps or standard automatic confidentiality statements at the end of emails). It is just one factor that we consider when determining whether the information was explicitly supplied in confidence.658 The typical bottom of e-mail “confidentiality” note is not sufficient to establish that information was supplied in confidence. Such notes are largely format and platitudes.659 Local authorities cannot be relieved of their responsibilities under LA FOIP merely by agreeing via a confidentiality clause in a contract/agreement to keep matters confidential.660 Since a local authority cannot guarantee confidentiality if LA FOIP mandates disclosure, it should frame any contract provisions, representations or policies accordingly so third parties are informed prior to providing information to the local authority. This includes tenders, requests for proposals and other processes. Pursuant to subsection 18(2) of LA FOIP, where a record contains third party information, the authority can release it with the written consent of the third party. Pursuant to subsection 18(3) of LA FOIP, where a record contains third party information, the local authority can release it if disclosure is in the public interest and the information relates to public health, public safety or protection of the environment. In addition, the public interest clearly outweighs in importance any financial loss or gain, prejudice to competitive position or interference with contractual negotiations of the third party. For further guidance, see Subsection 18(3) of this Chapter. 657 Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services) v. Hi-Rise Group Inc., 2004 FCA 99 (CanLII) at [37] and [42]. 658 SK OIPC Review Report F-2012-001/LA-2012-001 at [43]. 659 Brewster Inc. v. Canada (Environment), 2016 FC 339 (CanLII) at [22]. 660 St. Joseph Corp. v. Canada (Public Works & Government Services) [2002] FCT 274 at [53] and [54], Brookfield LePage Johnson Controls Facility Management Services v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services), [2003] FCT 254 at [16], SK OIPC Review Reports 159-2016 at [39], 052-2017 at [55] and Review Report 311-2017, 312-2017, 313-2017, 316-2017, 340-2017, 341-2017, 342-2017 at [63].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==