Faster, Clearer Access to Public Records

Summary#

This bill would change Saskatchewan’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It aims to make the public interest come first, reduce fee barriers, and strengthen the role of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. If passed, it would also speed up decisions and give clearer routes to court when there are disputes.

Key changes:

• Lets the head of a public body (the senior official in charge) excuse or cut fees if the applicant cannot afford them or if the records are clearly in the public interest.
• Requires public bodies to disclose, without delay, information about significant risks to the environment or to public health or safety, or any information that is clearly in the public interest—even if other parts of the Act would normally block release. Third parties and the Commissioner must be notified if practicable.
• Requires public bodies to give the Commissioner any records the Commissioner requests, even if they are protected by legal privilege (such as solicitor‑client privilege). Sharing with the Commissioner does not waive the privilege.
• Sets a 10‑day deadline for a public body to decide whether to follow the Commissioner’s recommendation. If it does not reply in time, it is deemed to have agreed.
• If a public body agrees (or is deemed to agree) but does not comply, the Commissioner may file an order in court to enforce access or a correction to personal information.
• If a public body decides not to follow the Commissioner’s recommendation, it must apply to court within 10 business days for a declaration that it does not have to comply. Applicants and third parties may also appeal to court within 10 business days.
• Repeals subsection 23(3) of the current Act. The bill text does not explain the effect of this repeal.

What it means for you#

• Applicants (people requesting records)

  • You could ask for fees to be waived or reduced if you cannot afford them or if the request is in the public interest.
  • You would need to act quickly. You have 10 business days to appeal a decision to the Court of King’s Bench.
  • You may see faster outcomes because public bodies face tight timelines and may be deemed to accept the Commissioner’s recommendations if they do not respond.

• General public

  • You may see more proactive releases of information, especially about environmental risks or threats to health and safety, and other matters clearly in the public interest.

• Third parties named in records (businesses or individuals)

  • You may be notified before (or soon after) your information is released when a public body decides disclosure is in the public interest.
  • You have 10 business days to appeal a disclosure decision to court.
  • Some information about you could be released if the head decides it is clearly in the public interest.

• Public bodies covered by the Act (provincial ministries, agencies, and others under FOIP)

  • You must disclose public‑interest information without delay, even if other exemptions might apply, and notify affected third parties and the Commissioner if practicable.
  • You must provide records the Commissioner requests, even if legally privileged, though privilege remains intact.
  • You face 10‑day deadlines to decide on the Commissioner’s recommendations and to apply to court if you choose not to comply.
  • If you agree to a recommendation but do not carry it out, the Commissioner can file an enforceable order in court.

• Information and Privacy Commissioner

  • Gains express authority to obtain privileged records for review and to file a limited, enforceable order in court when a public body agrees (or is deemed to agree) but does not comply.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Possible impacts:

• Public bodies may face higher administrative and legal costs to assess public‑interest disclosures, notify third parties, meet 10‑day deadlines, respond to the Commissioner’s requests (including privileged records), and apply or respond in court.
• The Commissioner’s office may need resources to handle more reviews, manage privileged materials, and prepare court filings.
• Public bodies may collect less in fees if more waivers are granted.
• Applicants could pay less in fees when waivers are approved; third parties might face legal costs if they choose to appeal.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to increase openness and accountability by putting the public interest first and requiring proactive disclosure of risk information.
• Allowing fee waivers could reduce barriers for people who cannot afford to request records and for matters that affect the broader public.
• Letting the Commissioner see all relevant records, including privileged ones (without waiving privilege), could lead to fuller and faster reviews.
• Short timelines and a default agreement if the public body does not respond could improve compliance and reduce delays.
• Limited court‑filed orders by the Commissioner could ensure that agreed decisions are actually carried out.
• The preamble states a goal to modernize Saskatchewan’s freedom of information system.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the required disclosure of information “in the public interest,” which applies even if other parts of the Act would block release, could risk revealing sensitive or private information. The bill does not define “clearly in the public interest,” which may lead to inconsistent decisions or disputes.
• Requiring production of solicitor‑client privileged records to the Commissioner, even with privilege preserved, may raise concerns about intruding on confidential legal advice.
• The 10‑business‑day deadlines for public bodies, applicants, and third parties may be hard to meet, especially for complex files, which could lead to rushed decisions or missed rights of appeal.
• The bill repeals subsection 23(3) but does not explain the effect. Without that context, the impact of this change is unclear.
• There appears to be a drafting issue: one part refers to a head failing to apply to court under “section 56.1” for a declaration, but the head’s court application is described in section 57. This could create confusion until clarified.