Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 78 The law enforcement matter does not have to be active and ongoing in order to qualify.305 It is not limited to law enforcement matters involving the local authority.306 2. Does one of the following exist? a) Could release of information interfere with a law enforcement matter? 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.307 For this provision to apply there must be objective grounds for believing that disclosing the information could result in the harm alleged. Interfere means to hinder or hamper.308 Interference can occur on concluded, active, ongoing or future law enforcement matters. For example, the right to ensure witnesses of complete confidentiality and secrecy would be severely compromised if the protection only existed until the end of a criminal proceeding.309 When there is a review by the IPC, the local authority is invited to provide a submission (arguments). The local authority should describe how and why disclosure of the information in question could interfere with a law enforcement matter. b) Could release disclose information with respect to a law enforcement matter? It is necessary for the local authority to demonstrate that the information in the record is information with respect to a law enforcement matter to meet this part of the test. 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 305 Evenson v Saskatchewan (Ministry of Justice), 2013 SKQB 296 (CanLII) at [40]. 306 Leo v Global Transportation Hub Authority, 2019 SKQB 150 at [25]. 307 SK OIPC Review Reports LA-2007-001 at [117], LA-2013-001 at [35], F-2014-001 at [149]. 308 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 152. 309 Evenson v Saskatchewan (Ministry of Justice), 2013 SKQB 296 (CanLII) at [40] to [45].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==