Guide to LA FOIP-Chapter-5

Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 5, Third Party Information. Updated 22 February 2023. 64 and in the opinion of the head, the third party can reasonably be located, the head shall give written notice to the third party in accordance with subsection (2). (2) The notice mentioned in subsection (1): (a) is to include: (i) a statement that: (A) an application for access to a record described in subsection (1) has been made; and (B) the head intends to give access to the record or to part of it; (ii) a description of the record that the head has reason to believe may contain: (A) information described in subsection 18(1) that affects the interest of the third party; or (B) personal information that may be disclosed pursuant to clause 28(2)(n) and that relates to the third party; and (iii) a statement that the third party may, within 20 days after the notice is given, make representations to the head as to why access to the record or part of the record should not be given; and (b) subject to subsection (3), is to be given within 30 days after the application is made. (3) Section 12 applies, with any necessary modification, to the extension of the period set out in clause (2)(b). (4) Where, in the opinion of the head, it is not reasonable to provide a notice to a third party pursuant to subsection (1), the head may dispense with the giving of notice. When reviewing a responsive record, local authorities may encounter information that appears to be about a third party. This includes third party information as described in subsection 18(1) of LA FOIP and personal information the local authority intends to disclose pursuant to subsection 28(2)(n) of LA FOIP. Section 33 of LA FOIP lays out who should receive notice and what the notice should include. In Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), 2012 SCC 3 (CanLII), [2012] 1 SCR 23, the Supreme Court of Canada summarized the requirement to provide notice and the nature of the review to be performed by the institutional head. In that case, the Court was considering the third party notice provision in the federal Access to Information Act (s. 27(1)) which has similar wording to section 33 of LA FOIP. In the court’s view, the head must conduct a sufficient review of the requested material to decide if the threshold for notice has been met:

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==