Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 5, Third Party Information. Updated 22 February 2023. 33 Exemption from disclosure should not be granted based on fear of harm that is fanciful, imaginary, or contrived. Such fears of harm are not reasonable because they are not based on reason…the words “could reasonably be expected” “refer to an expectation for which real and substantial grounds exist when looked at objectively”…82 Some relevant questions that may assist are: 83 • Does the third party perceive that disclosure would likely prejudice its competitive position. • How would disclosure impact on the competitive position of the third party. • Would it have an adverse effect on sales or marketing. How. • Would disclosure reveal plans or strategy. If so, what kind of plans or strategy. o Product launch o Product approvals o Marketing plans o Business acquisitions o Asset acquisitions o Others • How would knowledge of these plans specifically prejudice the third party’s competitive position. • Is there an indication of how a competitor could use the information to its advantage, i.e., by developing competing pricing strategies. • Has the information or same subject matter been disclosed elsewhere. o Publications o In applications to government that are public o In the press o In annual reports, government filings o In public registries • How old is the information. If the information is not current, why would disclosure still adversely affect the third party. 82 Canadian Bank Note Limited v Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2016 SKKB 362 (CanLII) at [49] relying on Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), [2012] 1 SCR 23, 2012 SCC 3 (CanLII) at [204]. 83 Adapted from Information Commissioner of Canada resource, Investigator’s Guide to Interpreting the Act, Section 20(1)(c) & (d): Questions. Available at https://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/en/investigators-guideinterpreting-act/section-201cd-questions. Accessed August 28, 2019.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==