Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 44 Section 14 of LA FOIP recognizes that there is a strong public interest in protecting documents related to law enforcement: see Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v Criminal Lawyers’ Association, 2010 SCC 23 at para 44, [2010] 1 SCR 815.155 Section 14 of LA FOIP is a discretionary class-based and harm-based provision. Meaning, it contains both class and harm based exemptions. For the harms based exemptions, section 14 of LA FOIP uses the word “could” versus “could reasonably be expected to” as seen in other provisions of LA FOIP. The threshold for “could” is lower than the threshold for “could reasonably be expected to.”156 Subsection 14(1)(a) Law enforcement and investigations 14(1) A head may refuse to give access to a record, the release of which could: (a) prejudice, interfere with or adversely affect the detection, investigation, prevention or prosecution of an offence or the security of a centre of lawful detention; … (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a record that: (a) provides a general outline of the structure or programs of a law enforcement agency; or (b) reports, by means of statistical analysis or otherwise, on the degree of success achieved in a law enforcement program. Subsection 14(1)(a) of LA FOIP is a discretionary harm-based exemption. It permits refusal of access in situations where release of a record could prejudice, interfere with or adversely affect the detection, investigation, prevention or prosecution of an offence or the security of a centre of lawful detention. Section 14 of LA FOIP uses the word could versus “could reasonably be expected to” as seen in other provisions of LA FOIP. The threshold for could is somewhat lower than a reasonable expectation. The requirement for could is simply that the release of the information could have the specified result. There would still have to be a basis for asserting the harm could occur. If it is fanciful or exceedingly remote, the exemption should not be invoked.157 For this 155 Stated in Leo v Global Transportation Hub Authority, 2019 SKQB 150 at [22]. 156 SK OIPC Review Reports LA-2007-001 at [117], F-2014-001 at [149]. 157 SK OIPC Review Reports LA-2007-001 at [117], LA-2013-001 at [35], F-2014-001 at [149].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==