Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 5, Third Party Information. Updated 22 February 2023. 6 of a material financial loss or prejudice to a third party’s competitive position.8 Subsection 18(1)(c)(iii) • Once a contract is executed, negotiation is concluded. The exemption would generally not apply unless, for instance, the same negotiation strategy will be used again, and it has not been publicly disclosed.9 • The Federal Court in Société Gamma Inc. v. Canada (Department of the Secretary of State) (1994), 56 C.P.R. (3d) 58, interpreted the equivalent provision in the federal Access to Information Act as requiring that “it must refer to an obstruction to those negotiations and not merely the heightening of competition for the third party which might flow from disclosure”.10 Further, a distinction must be drawn between actual contractual negotiations and the daily business operations of a third party.11 IPC Findings In Review Report LA-2012-004, the Commissioner considered a denial of access by the Board of Education of the Saskatoon School Division No. 13 (Board). An applicant made a request for access to a contract between the Board and a taxi company. The Board released the majority of the contract to the applicant but withheld portions pursuant to sections 17(1)(d), (f), (g) and 18(1)(c) of LA FOIP. The Commissioner found that in all cases the Board did not meet the burden of proof in demonstrating the exemptions applied and recommended release of the whole contract. 8 Canadian Pacific Hotels Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 444 (CanLII) at [35]. See also SK OIPC Review Report 020-2016 at [19] to [22]. 9 British Columbia Government Services, FOIPPA Policy and Procedures Manual at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/services-for-government/policiesprocedures/foippa-manual/disclosure-harmful-economic-interests. Accessed July 19, 2019. Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 107. 10 Société Gamma Inc. v. Canada (Department of the Secretary of State), (April 27, 1994), T-1587-93, T1588-93 (F.C.T.D.) at [10]. 11 Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of External Affairs) (T.D.), [1990] 3 FC 665, 1990 CanLII 7951 (FC) at [24].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==