Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 269 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. The bare assertion that the information was provided implicitly in confidence would not be sufficient.914 Factors to consider when determining if a document was provided in confidence explicitly include (not exhaustive): • The existence of an express condition of confidentiality between the local authority and the party providing it.915 • 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.916 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. 914 SK OIPC Review Report LA-2013-002 at [60]. 915 SK OIPC Review Reports F-2006-002 at [56], LA-2013-003 at [113], F-2014-002 at [47]; PEI IPC Order 03-006 at p. 5; AB IPC Orders 97-013 at [23] to [24], 2001-008 at [54]. 916 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==