Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 27 IPC Findings In Review Report 333-2017, the Commissioner considered whether the Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA) appropriately applied subsection 13(1)(c) of LA FOIP to email exchanges between the SHA and the Government of Alberta. The Commissioner determined that subsection 13(1)(c) did not apply because the SHA was providing information to the Government of Alberta, and not receiving it from the Government of Alberta. As such, the Commissioner found that it was not information obtained from the Government of Alberta. 2. Was the information obtained implicitly or explicitly in confidence? In confidence usually describes a situation of mutual trust in which private matters are relayed or reported. Information obtained in confidence means that the provider of the information has stipulated how the information can be disseminated.77 In order for confidence to be found, there must be an implicit or explicit agreement or understanding of confidentiality on the part of both the local authority and the party providing the information.78 The expectation of confidentiality must be reasonable and must have an objective basis.79 Whether the information is confidential will depend upon its content, its purposes, and the circumstances in which it was compiled or communicated. (Corporate Express Canada, Inc. v. The President and Vice Chancellor of Memorial University of Newfoundland, Gary Kachanoski, (2014)) Once it has been established that the local authority obtained a record from another government in confidence, the continued confidentiality of that record must be presumed, unless the other government has consented to disclosure or has made the information public.80 In other words, there are no time limits on the confidentiality. Just because a record might be old, it does not lose its confidential nature. 77 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, p. 104; SK OIPC Review Reports F-2006-002 at [51], H-2008-002 at [73]; ON IPC Order MO-1896 at p. 8. 78 SK OIPC Review Reports F-2006-002 at [52], LA-2013-002 at [57]; ON IPC Order MO-1896 at p. 8. 79 SK OIPC Review Reports F-2012-001/LA-2012-001 at [32], LA-2013-002 at [49]; ON IPC Orders PO2273 at p. 7 and PO-2283 at p. 10. 80 Saskatchewan (Ministry of Health) v West, 2022 SKCA 18 at [25].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==