Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 94 The provision extends to legal instruments of a local authority the same protection extended to provincial government legislation and regulations in subsection 17(1)(e) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The following test can be applied: Does the record contain a draft of a resolution or bylaw? Contents means the things that are contained in something.358 Draft means a version of the resolution, bylaw that has not been finalized for consideration in public by the local authority.359 A resolution means a formal expression of opinion or will of an official body or public assembly, adopted by a vote of those present. The term is usually employed to denote the adoption of a motion such as an expression of opinion, a change to rules or a vote of support or censure.360 A bylaw means a rule adopted by a local public body with bylaw-making powers, such as a municipal council.361 The contents of a draft resolution or bylaw can be revealed in two ways: 1. The information itself consists of a draft resolution or bylaw. 2. The information, if disclosed, would permit the drawing of accurate inferences as to the nature of the actual drafts.362 358 Pearsall, Judy, Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th Edition at p. 307 (Oxford University Press). 359 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, p. 172. See also SK OIPC Review Report 019-2014 at [81]. 360 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, p. 172. See also SK OIPC Review Report 019-2014 at [82]. 361 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4, p. 172. See also SK OIPC Review Report 019-2014 at [83]. 362 Adapted from ON IPC Orders PO-3470-R at [28], PO-2084 at p. 8 and PO-2028 at pp. 10 and 11, upheld on judicial review in Ontario (Ministry of Northern Development and Mines) v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2004] O.J. No. 163 (Div. Ct.), aff’d [2005] O.J. No. 4048 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 564. See also Order PO-1993 at p. 12, upheld on judicial review in Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2005] O.J. No. 4047 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 563. Also relied on for interpretation of subsection 17(1)(e) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, see Chapter 4, IPC Guide to FOIP at p. 142.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==