Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 261 • The fact that the local authority requested the information be provided in a sealed envelope and/or outlined its confidentiality intentions to the party prior to the information being provided.912 The preceding factors are not a test but rather guidance on factors to consider. It is not an exhaustive list. Each case will require different supporting arguments. Two cases came before the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan dealing with subsection 30(2) of LA FOIP. Those two cases are as follows: • Fogal v. Regina School Division No. 4, 2002 SKKB 92 (CanLII) • Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKKB 92 (CanLII) IPC Findings In Review Report LA-2004-001, the Commissioner reviewed a denial of access by the Lloydminster Public School Division (Division). An applicant requested access to records related to the applicant’s suitability for volunteering in after-school sport activities. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the evaluative or opinion material was not compiled for the purpose of determining the applicant’s suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for employment or for the awarding of a contract or other benefit. It was compiled for the purpose of determining the suitability of a volunteer to engage in “volunteer” activity in an after-hours sports program. The Commissioner found that a volunteer does not meet the definition of “employee” of a local authority. As such, the Commissioner found that subsection 30(2) of LA FOIP did not apply. In Review Report 258-2016, the Commissioner found that the name of the individual giving the opinion was also captured by the provision. The purpose and intent of the provision is to allow individuals to provide frank feedback where there is an evaluation process occurring. In addition, evaluating suitability for employment can take place not only during the hiring process but also during an employee’s tenure. Furthermore, the provision can include unsolicited records such as letters of concern or complaint (Fogal v. Regina School Division No. 4, (2002)). In Review Report 010-2018, the Commissioner reviewed a denial of access by the South East Cornerstone Public School Division #209 (Cornerstone). An applicant was seeking parental complaints and witness statements regarding an incident. Cornerstone withheld the records pursuant to several provisions in LA FOIP including subsection 30(2) of LA FOIP. Upon review, 912 SK OIPC Review Reports F-2006-002 at [56], F-2012-001/LA-2012-001 at [29], LA-2013-002 at [49], LA-2013-003 at [113], F-2014-002 at [47]; PEI IPC Order 03-006 at p. 5; AB IPC Order 97-013 at [25].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==