Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 5, Third Party Information. Updated 22 February 2023. 51 • Have there been any allegations of impropriety, negligence, cover-up, or inadequacy about the local authority arising from the matters described in the records. • Has the local authority responded to these allegations. Subsection 18(3) of LA FOIP includes the requirement that the public interest in disclosure “could reasonably be expected” to clearly outweigh in importance the harms listed. The meaning of the phrase “could reasonably be expected to” in terms of harm-based exemptions was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Service) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), (2014): This Court in Merck Frosst adopted the “reasonable expectation of probable harm” formulation and it should be used wherever the “could reasonably be expected to” language is used in access to information statutes. As the Court in Merck Frosst emphasized, the statute tries to mark out a middle ground between that which is probable and that which is merely possible. An institution must provide evidence “well beyond” or “considerably above” a mere possibility of harm in order to reach that middle ground: paras. 197 and 199. This inquiry of course is contextual and how much evidence and the quality of evidence needed to meet this standard will ultimately depend on the nature of the issue and “inherent probabilities or improbabilities or the seriousness of the allegations or consequences”… IPC Findings In Review Report 043-2015 the Commissioner considered the equivalent provision in The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (subsection 19(3)). An applicant made an access to information request to the Ministry of Environment for the “2012 and 2013 Water and Air Quality Compliance Reports”. The Ministry withheld portions of the two reports citing subsections 19(1)(b) and (c) of FOIP (third party information). Upon review, the Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(c) of FOIP applied to portions of the reports. Further, the Commissioner found that the public interest resulting from disclosure of the information would outweigh in importance, any financial loss or prejudice to the competitive position of the third party. As such, the Commissioner recommended the reports be released pursuant to subsection 19(1)(3) of FOIP. Section 28: Disclosure of Personal Information
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==