Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 217 nature of the issue and “inherent probabilities or improbabilities or the seriousness of the allegations or consequences”…746 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.747 Prejudice in this context refers to detriment to the use or to the results of tests or audits.748 It is generally applied where disclosure of a specific test to be given or audit to be conducted, or one that is currently in process, would invalidate the results. This applies even if there is no intention to use the test or audit again in the future.749 The exemption does not cover the results of tests or audits.750 746 Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2014] 1 SCR 674, 2014 SCC 31 (CanLII) at [54]. 747 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. 748 Adapted from Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, p. 149. 749 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, p. 195. 750 Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Ponts Jacques Cartier & Champlain Inc. (2000), 8 C.P.R. (4th) 536 (Fed. T.D.) at 543-545.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==