Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 193 • How much money is involved. • Will the loss or gain affect the financial performance of the third party. How. To what degree. • How old is the information. If the information is not current, why would disclosure still adversely affect the third party. • Has similar information about the third party been made public in the past. If so, what was the impact. Was the impact quantifiable (e.g., lost sales or revenues). • Is information of this nature available about competitors of the third party. • Are there examples in other businesses where disclosure of similar information led to material financial loss or gain. If so, describe and quantify the financial loss or gain. Why is the situation parallel to that of this third party. • What actions could the third party take to counteract potential financial loss or gain knowing the information would be disclosed. In Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), the Federal Court stated that proof of harm for the equivalent provisions in the federal Access to Information Act, required reasonable speculation because “in many circumstances a party cannot rely on harm from past disclosures as evidence of reasonably expected harm because past disclosures of that type of evidence may never have occurred”. Nonetheless, the party seeking to exempt the information must put forward something more than internally held beliefs and fears. Forecasting evidence, expert evidence and evidence of treatment of similar elements of proof or similar situations are frequently accepted as a logical basis for the expectation of harm.670 Pursuant to subsection 18(2) of LA FOIP, where a record contains third party information, the local 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. 670 Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2005 FC 189 (CanLII) at [44] to [47].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==