Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 59 2. Could disclosure of the records be injurious to the local authority in the conduct of the legal proceedings? There must be objective grounds for believing that disclosing the information could result in injury. 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.213 Injury implies damage or detriment.214 The exemption is designed to protect the local authority from harm in its existing or anticipated legal proceedings. In order for the release of a record to be injurious to the local authority “in the context of existing or anticipated legal proceedings”, the local authority would need to be a party to such proceedings.215 When there is a review by the IPC, the local authority is invited to provide a submission (arguments). The local authority should describe the harm in detail to support the application of the provision. Local authorities should not assume that the harm is self-evident on the face of the records. Parallel civil court action does not bar or preclude a formal review by the IPC.216 Discovery and disclosure provisions of The Queen’s Bench Rules of Saskatchewan operate independent of any process under LA FOIP. Subsection 4(c) of LA FOIP establishes that LA FOIP does not limit access to information otherwise available by law to parties to litigation. Section 4 also establishes that LA FOIP complements and does not replace existing procedures for access to records. Therefore, the injury should be above and beyond any prejudice that relates to the production of a relevant, non-privileged document in the usual course of a lawsuit.217 Where there are concerns or objections to the admissibility of any records in legal proceedings, such concerns could be argued before that tribunal. If a record is prejudicial to a local authority’s position, it would have the usual opportunity to make a 213 SK OIPC Review Reports LA-2007-001 at [117], LA-2013-001 at [35], F-2014-001 at [149]. 214 Adapted from definition of ‘harm’ in Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 148. 215 SK OIPC Review Report LA-2013-001 at [32]. 216 SK OIPC Review Report LA-2013-001 at [48]. 217 SK OIPC Review Reports LA-2007-001 at [121], 145-2015 at [13], 153-2015 at [61], 223-2015 and 224-2015 at [19].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==