Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 199 • Are there examples in other businesses where disclosure of similar information led to competitive prejudice. 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 competitive prejudice knowing the information would be disclosed. 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. IPC Findings In Review Report 158-2018, the applicant requested records from the University of Regina (the University) regarding the elimination of varsity teams. The University relied on subsection 18(1)(c)(ii) of LA FOIP on portions of the record; there was no third-party submission. The Commissioner found that subsection 18(1)(c)(i) of LA FOIP did not apply to the record because the University did not describe how release would harm the competitive position of a third-party; rather, the University appeared to focus on how release of the information would harm its own competitive position. In Review Report 007-2015, the Commissioner considered the equivalent provision in The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (subsection 19(1)(c)). An applicant made an access to information request to the Ministry of Central Services (Central Services) for the Statement of Work attached to Information Technology Consulting Services Agreement ITO12023. Central Services responded to the applicant advising that it was withholding portions of the Statement of Work pursuant to several provisions of FOIP including subsection 19(1)(c). During the review, Central Services and the third party asserted that releasing the estimated hours, hourly rate and estimated cost per consultant would result in a competitor having the ability to provide a lower rate for future contracts, which would cause the third party to experience a competitive disadvantage. However, neither Central Services nor the third party provided anything further to support this assertion. The Commissioner also stated that the winning contractor would have access to the internal cost estimates in question as it is part of the current contract and that keeping these figures from the public, including other future
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==