Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 6, Protection of Privacy. Updated 27 February 2023. 80 without authority. During the investigation, the Commissioner had to determine if LA FOIP or The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) was engaged. As the SHA was both a local authority and a trustee and the information at issue was personal health information, the Commissioner determined that HIPA was engaged in the matter. This determination was based on subsection 23(1.1) of LA FOIP and subsection 4(3) of HIPA. In Investigation Report 045-2021 et al., the Commissioner investigated numerous misdirected faxes that went astray. In one instance, a misdirected fax originated from the Department of Pediatrics at the College of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan (U of S). The Commissioner determined that the U of S was not a trustee under The Health Information Protection Act (HIPA). However, it was a local authority as defined under subsection 2(f)(xi) of LA FOIP. Therefore, the Commissioner determined that subsection 23(1.1) of LA FOIP did not apply for the information involving the U of S. As the U of S was only a local authority, and not a trustee under HIPA, the information in the misdirected fax qualified as “personal information” pursuant to subsection 23(1)(c) of LA FOIP. Further, that LA FOIP was engaged on the matters involving the misdirected fax from the U of S. Subsection 23(2)(a) Interpretation 23(2) “Personal information” does not include information that discloses: (a) the classification, salary, discretionary benefits or employment responsibilities of an individual who is or was an officer or employee of a local authority; The purpose of subsection 23(2)(a) of LA FOIP is to allow the release of information about employment benefits and responsibilities of public servants, allowing a degree of transparency in relation to the compensation and benefits provided.195 195 Adapted from AB IPC Orders 98-014 at [12] and F2003-002 at [23]. Alberta’s subsection 17(2)(e) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act RSA 2000, c-F-25, is somewhat similar to Saskatchewan’s subsection 23(2)(a) of LA FOIP. One difference is that is considers what is an unreasonable invasion of a person’s privacy. In Alberta’s Act, disclosing the classification, salary range, discretionary benefits or employment responsibilities as an officer, employee, or member of a public body or as a member of the staff of a member of the Executive Council is considered to not be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==