Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 60 submission to the tribunal who will then make a determination as it determines appropriate.218 In Britto v University of Saskatchewan, (2018), Justice Danyliuk confirmed the above position at paragraph [61] but determined that it did not go far enough. Danyliuk J. added at paragraph [66] that the Act does not trump every potential privilege claim simply because the documents disclosed may later be argued to be inadmissible. The problem is twofold: not only is there potential use and abuse of the disclosed record before any admissibility ruling is made under the adjudicative process, but there is also the broader problem of the undercutting of the free communications essential to seeking and obtaining legal advice.219 Admissibility means the quality, state, or condition of being allowed to be entered into evidence in a hearing, trial or other official proceeding.220 A local authority cannot rely on subsection 14(1)(d) of LA FOIP for 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 (see subsection 14(2) of LA FOIP). IPC Findings The Commissioner considered subsection 14(1)(d) of LA FOIP in Review Report 223-2015 and 224-2015. An applicant had requested a copy of a completed audit report. The City of Regina (the City) refused to confirm or deny the existence of any records responsive to the request. The City cited subsection 14(1)(d) and section 21 of LA FOIP as provisions that would apply if the records existed. The City also provided a severed copy of a briefing note citing subsection 14(1)(d) of LA FOIP. Upon review, the Commissioner found that the first part of the test was met because there was a lawsuit commenced against the City at the time of the review. Furthermore, the Commissioner found that the second part of the test was met because a trial date had not yet been set and injury could result from potential swaying of jury members prior to trial due to the high profile of the case and the media attention it had garnered. 218 SK OIPC Review Reports LA-2014-004 at [15] and 153-2015 at [64]. 219 Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92 at [61], [66] and [68]. 220 Garner, Bryan A., 2019. Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group at p. 57.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==