Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 6, Protection of Privacy. Updated 27 February 2023. 219 personal information pursuant to subsection 28(2)(n) of LA FOIP. The Commissioner found that the RM did not provide supporting arguments or explain how subsection 28(2)(n) of LA FOIP applied in the circumstances. Therefore, the Commissioner found that the RM could not rely on subsection 28(2)(n) of LA FOIP for the disclosure. In Investigation Report 082-2017, the Commissioner reviewed the Rural Municipality of McKillop No. 220 (RM). An applicant requested access to invoices submitted to the RM for contract services by a former employee including invoices submitted by summer students. The RM withheld all and portions of records asserting the records contained personal information citing subsection 28(1) of LA FOIP. Upon review, the Commissioner decided to consider whether release of the financial transactions involving the RM and the former employee was in the public interest pursuant to subsection 28(2)(n)(i) of LA FOIP. The Commissioner’s office provided notice of the review to the former employee pursuant to subsection 41(1)(a) of LA FOIP and advised the former employee of the Commissioner’s intention to review the applicability of subsection 28(2)(n)(i) of LA FOIP. After considering the three part test for this provision, the Commissioner recommended the RM consider disclosing the personal information pursuant to subsection 28(2)(n)(i) of LA FOIP. In Review Report 173-2018, the Commissioner reviewed a denial of access by Meewasin Valley Authority (MVA). An applicant was denied access to the amount of the severance package for an individual from MVA. The Commissioner found that the information qualified as the employee’s personal information pursuant to subsection 24(1)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). However, the Commissioner advised MVA that it had the discretionary ability to disclose the personal information pursuant to the equivalent provision in FOIP - subsections 29(2)(o)(i) and 16(g)(ii) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations (equivalent to subsection 10(g)(ii) of the LA FOIP Regulations). The Commissioner recommended MVA consider subsection 29(2)(o) of FOIP. In Review Report 082-2019, 083-2019, the Commissioner reviewed a denial of access by the Ministry of Health (Health). An applicant was denied access to the names of physicians, their specialties and total payment amounts they received for 2018 (top 100 physician billers and all physicians that billed the medical system more than $1 million). The Commissioner found that none of the exemptions applied by Health to the information qualified. The Commissioner recommended Health consider releasing the information under subsection 29(2)(o) of FOIP. In Review Report 342-2019, the Commissioner reviewed a denial of access by the Ministry of Health (Health). An applicant was denied access to the names of the top 10 physicians, their
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==