Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 5, Third Party Information. Updated 22 February 2023. 66 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). Subsection 33(1)(a) of LA FOIP requires that where a local authority intends to release information that might constitute third party information pursuant to subsection 18(1) of LA FOIP, the third party must be informed if the third party can reasonably be located. It is important to note that if the local authority does not intend to release the third party information, no notice is required to the third party. If the local authority intends to withhold, then it is inappropriate practice to give third party notice as it causes unnecessary delay in the process. The following steps can be taken for subsection 33(1)(a) of LA FOIP: 1. Is the information third party information Determine if the information at issue constitutes third party information pursuant to subsection 18(1) of LA FOIP. For assistance with section 18, see the Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4: “Exemptions from the Right of Access” for more information on the interpretation and tests to apply for subsections 18(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of LA FOIP. a. No, it is not third party information… Where the head of the local authority concludes that the information at issue does not fit the circumstances in subsection 18(1) of LA FOIP, notice to a third party is not required and the information can be released or considered for exemption under another provision of LA FOIP. A third party would not have a right to apply to the Commissioner for review under subsection 38(3) of LA FOIP where the head of the local authority determined the information at issue was not third party information under subsection 18(1) of LA FOIP.170 170 See Sawridge Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (1987), 10 F.T.R. 48, aff'd sub nom and Twinn v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (1987), 80 N.R. 263 (F.C.A.) at p. 373. These decisions dealt with the federal Access to Information Act but are relevant for LA FOIP. The court held that the right to seek a review was not available to the third party because notice was not required because the information was not deemed third party information.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==