Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 247 A description of the party to whom the correspondence is written to, or received from, or at least a description of the role of the party (such as medical expert, potential witness, client.) A description of an enclosure where relevant. Some particulars as to the purpose of the document.862 For more on what the Commissioner requires, see Part 9: Solicitor-Client or Litigation Privilege in the Rules of Procedure. If the local authority provides less than what is needed for a prima facie case to be met, the Commissioner may request additional details. If the local authority fails to provide the additional details, the Commissioner may do one or both of the following, pursuant to subsection 43(2) of LA FOIP: • Summon and enforce the appearance of any person, including employees of a government institution, before the Commissioner and compel them to give oral and/or written evidence under oath or affirmation and produce any documents required. • Seek an order from the Court of King’s Bench for production of the records from the local authority. Settlement Privilege Settlement privilege is privilege that applies to the discussions leading up to a resolution of a dispute in the face of litigation. It promotes the settlement of lawsuits.863 The purpose of settlement privilege is to promote settlement by allowing parties to negotiate without fear that the concessions they offer, and the information they provide, will be used against them in subsequent proceedings.864 The rule is that communications and documents exchanged by parties as they try to settle a dispute cannot be used in subsequent proceedings, whether or not a settlement is reached. 862 Gichuru v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2014 BCCA 259 (CanLII) at [43]. 863 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 201. 864 Union Carbide Canada Inc. v. Bombardier Inc., 2014 SCC 35 at [3] and [31]; Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Ameron International Corp., 2013 SCC 37 at [12]. See also BC IPC Order F20-21 at [57].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==