Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 213 nature of the issue and “inherent probabilities or improbabilities or the seriousness of the allegations or consequences”…732 The local authority does not have to prove that a harm is probable but needs to show that there is a “reasonable expectation of harm” if any of the information were to be released. In British Columbia (Minister of Citizens’ Service) v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), (2012), Bracken J. confirmed it is the release of the information itself that must give rise to a reasonable expectation of harm. Local authorities should not assume that the harm is self-evident. The harm must be described in a precise and specific way in order to support the application of the provision. The expectation of harm must be reasonable, but it need not be a certainty. The evidence of harm must: • Show how the disclosure of the information would cause harm; • Indicate the extent of harm that would result; and • Provide facts to support the assertions made.733 Prejudice in this context refers to detriment to the use or to the results of tests or audits.734 The provision may apply where there is an intention to use the testing or auditing procedure in the future, and disclosure would result in unreliable results being obtained and the test or the audit having to be abandoned as a result. Test questions that are regularly used – for example, in making staffing decisions - may qualify.735 For subsection 19(a) of LA FOIP, the provision primarily protects testing or auditing procedures and techniques; the testing/auditing mechanism, not the content.736 The exemption does not cover the results of tests or audits.737 732 Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2014] 1 SCR 674, 2014 SCC 31 (CanLII) at [54]. 733 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Access to Information Manual, Chapter 11.14.4. Available at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/accessinformation/access-information-manual.html#cha11_14. Accessed August 29, 2019. 734 Adapted from Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, p. 149. 735 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, p. 195. 736 SK OIPC Review Report F-2010-001 at [102]. 737 Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Ponts Jacques Cartier & Champlain Inc. (2000), 8 C.P.R. (4th) 536 (Fed. T.D.) at 543-545.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==