Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 25 Explicitly means that the request for confidentiality has been clearly expressed, distinctly stated or made definite. There may be documentary evidence that shows that the information was obtained with the understanding that it would be kept confidential.66 Factors to consider when determining if information was obtained in confidence explicitly include (not exhaustive): • The existence of an express condition of confidentiality between the local authority and the party that provided the information.67 • The fact that the local authority requested the information be provided in a sealed envelope and/or outlined its confidentiality intentions prior to the information being provided.68 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. Simply labelling documents as “confidential” does not, on its own, make the documents confidential (i.e., confidentiality stamps or standard automatic confidentiality statements at the end of emails). It is just one factor that we consider when determining whether the information was explicitly supplied in confidence.69 IPC Findings In Tarasoff v Saskatoon (City), 2025 SKKB 41 at paragraphs [36] and [38], the Court found that the City properly relied on the exemption in section 13(b). In that case the Saskatoon Police Service received the PowerPoint presentation from the Government of Saskatchewan and provided it to the City under a CSWB subject line. The PowerPoint presentation discussed government strategies, budgets, analyses, policy initiatives, plans and research priorities in areas relevant to the CSWB mandate. It was clear that the government obviously intended it to be confidential. The confidentiality footer on the covering email from the City did not invoke expectations of confidentiality or assist in that determination. The Court read behind 66 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, pp. 104 to 105. 67 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]. 68 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]. 69 SK OIPC Review Report F-2012-001/LA-2012-001 at [43].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==