Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 5, Third Party Information. Updated 22 February 2023. 23 Since a local authority cannot guarantee confidentiality if LA FOIP mandates disclosure, it should frame any contract provisions, representations or policies accordingly so third parties are informed prior to providing information to the local authority. This includes tenders, requests for proposals and other processes. Pursuant to subsection 18(2) of LA FOIP, where a record contains third party information, the authority can release it with the written consent of the third party. Pursuant to subsection 18(3) of LA FOIP, where a record contains third party information, the local authority can release it if disclosure is in the public interest and the information relates to public health, public safety or protection of the environment. In addition, the public interest clearly outweighs in importance any financial loss or gain, prejudice to competitive position or interference with contractual negotiations of the third party. For further guidance, see Subsection 18(3) later in this Chapter. IPC Findings In Review Report 156-2019, 006-2020, the Commissioner considered subsection 18(1)(b) of LA FOIP. An applicant made a request to the Rural Municipality of Enniskillen (RM) for official survey plans submitted to council. The RM withheld portions of the record pursuant to subsection 18(1)(b) of LA FOIP. While the RM stated that the record in question was supplied to it in confidence by the third party, the third party indicated that it consented to the release of the record. Because the RM did not explain how the information was supplied to it in confidence, the Commissioner determined that he was not persuaded that the third party was precluded from waiving any confidentiality. In Review Report 108-2019, the applicant submitted an access to information request to the City of Regina (City) regarding a certain parcel of land. The City applied subsection 18(1)(b) of LA FOIP to portions of the record, citing two third parties. The City and the third party submitted that the information at question qualified as commercial information. Both the City and the third party asserted the information had been supplied implicitly in confidence because of ongoing commercial negotiations, but the third parties involved did not provide specific information with respect to the ongoing negotiations. As well, the City did not provide a timeline indicating at what point in the application process each record was at [55] and Review Report 311-2017, 312-2017, 313-2017, 316-2017, 340-2017, 341-2017, 342-2017 at [63].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==