Digest: Britto v University of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 92

Date:March 22, 2018
 
FREE EXCERPT

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 92

Docket Number: QB17476 , QBG 979/16 JCS

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-03-22

Judges:

  • Danyliuk

Subjects:

  • Statutes � Interpretation � The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Digest: The appellant appealed to the Court of Queen�s Bench under s. 46(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (LAFOIPA) after a review had been conducted under s. 38 of LAFOIPA by the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Saskatchewan. The review had been undertaken after the appellant applied to the respondent University to disclose certain records pursuant to LAFOIPA. The respondent provided some of the requested records but withheld others, amounting to 306 pages, based on exemptions from disclosure under s. 8, s, 14(1)(d), s. 16(1)(a) and (b), s. 21, s. 28(1) and s. 30(2) of LAFOIPA. The Commissioner determined variously that the respondent�s exemption claim under s. 14(1)(d) was not valid and under s. 16(1)(a) and (b), s. 28(1) and s. 30(2) was partially valid. He listed the records not properly exempted and recommended that the respondent release them to the appellant. As the recommendations were not binding upon the respondent, it refused to release the documents and the appellant appealed. The court ruled that the respondent should submit the documents under seal and provided further directions to the parties (see: 2017 SKQB 259). After reviewing the documents, the commissioner�s report and hearing argument, the court described the issues, based on the exemptions claimed by the respondent, as: 1) whether s. 28(1) of LAFOIPA had any application to the relevant records. The respondent argued that under s. 23(1)(k), one document, an email, identified another person whose name was redacted; 2) whether s. 14(1)(d) of LAFOIPA had any application to the relevant records. The respondent argued that disclosure of them would be injurious to its position in legal proceedings with the appellant; 3) whether s. 16(1)(a) of LAFOIPA had any application to the relevant records. The respondent argued that all of them fell...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP