You are here
Review Officer releases Review Report FI-10-59(M)
An applicant sought access to a copy of an agreement between the Town of Wolfville and a third party regarding the transfer of property. The Town of Wolfville gave third party notice. When the third party failed to respond, the Town withheld the entire agreement as confidential business information. The Review Officer determined that the information in the agreement was not supplied in confidence within the meaning of s. 481(1)(b) of the MGA and the third party failed to show evidence of harm sufficient to meet the requirements of s. 481(1)(c). The Review Officer recommended disclosure of the agreement.
The Review Officer clarified the approach to be taken by public bodies with respect to the requirement for third party notice. Read more. . .
Review Officer releases 2014-2015 Annual Report
Today Catherine Tully, Nova Scotia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Review Officer, released her office’s annual report for 2014-15. In the report, Tully describes a vision of a Nova Scotia government that actively discloses vital information, and that vigorously protects the privacy of its citizens. Read more...
Newfoundland and Labrador's New Access and Privacy Legislation In Force
Newfoundland and Labrador's new access and privacy legislation, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 (ATIPPA, 2015) came into force this week.
Newfoundland and Labrador’s Information and Privacy Commissioner Ed Ring commented: “The OIPC is pleased with its expanded role and the advancements in access and privacy law the ATIPPA, 2015 has created. This new law is the best of its kind in Canada and among the best globally”.
More information on this new Act can be found at http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2015/oipc/0603n03.aspx.
New Time Extension Guidelines and Time Extension Request Form for Public Bodies
On April 22, 2015, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its decision in Nova Scotia (Public Prosecutions Service) v. FitzGerald Estate, 2015 NSCA 38. The Court of Appeal found that the judge erred in his interpretation and application of both the discretionary exemption dealing with prosecutorial discretion [s. 15(1)(f)], and the mandatory exemption that protects third party personal information from disclosure. In addition, by importing the Stinchcombe disclosure rights into the FOIPOP Act, he committed palpable and overriding errors of fact.
New/Updated Publications Now Available