[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-237565-105":53,"doc-detail-237565-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","la-foip-review-report-037-2021-access-to-information-fee-waiver-and-withheld-records","LA FOIP Review Report 037-2021 - Access to Information Fee Waiver and Withheld Records","","Review report 037-2021 addresses an access to information request made to the Rural Municipality of Pleasantdale No. 398 under LA FOIP. The municipality provided partial access, withholding portions using LA FOIP exemptions related to personal information, and did not grant a fee waiver for a $20 application fee. The applicant sought reimbursement and review of the decisions, arguing the information qualified as public record material. The commissioner found applicable exemptions under section 28(1) and section 23(1)(k)(i), denying a fee waiver and recommending the municipality continue withholding while meeting its duty to assist in future responses.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/la-foip-review-report-037-2021-access-to-information-fee-waiver-and-withheld-records/237565/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/la-foip-review-report-037-2021-access-to-information-fee-waiver-and-withheld-records/237565.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Terk","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-11",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What records were at issue in this LA FOIP review?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"The review concerned a one-page resignation letter from a former administrator received January 10, 2021. The municipality severed information from the page when denying access.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"What reason did the Rural Municipality give for withholding information?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"The municipality withheld portions under LA FOIP provisions related to personal information and treated the matter as not qualifying as a public record under section 3(1)(b).",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Did the Commissioner grant the applicant a fee waiver or reimbursement?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"No. The Commissioner determined the criteria for a fee waiver were not met and recommended no further action regarding the application fee, while also recommending the municipality continue withholding the information.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},237565,1789113466,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":126,"read_time":76},1099525198933,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","REVIEW REPORT 037-2021  \nRural Municipality of Pleasantdale No. 398  \nNovember 22, 2021  \nSummary: The Applicant submitted an access to information request to the Rural  \nMunicipality of Pleasantdale No. 398 (RM) . The RM responded by providing the Applicant with partial access to the records. It withheld other portions pursuant to sections 23(1)(k)(ii) and 28(1) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) . The Applicant also requested a reimbursement of the $20 application fee based on the assertion that the information qualified as public information pursuant to section 117 of The Municipalities Act. The RM was not of the view that section 117 of The Municipalities Act had any application. The RM also indicated that it did not fully address the Applicant’s request for a waiver of the application fee because it was under the impression it did not have to respond to the Applicant’s request for reimbursement once my office was reviewing the issue. The Applicant requested the Commissioner review the RM’s decisions. The Commissioner found that section 28(1) of LA FOIP applied to the withheld portions ofthe information. Although the RM indicated that the withheld information qualified as personal information pursuant to section 23(1)(k)(ii) of LA FOIP, the Commissioner found that section 23(1)(k)(i) of LA FOIP instead applied. The Commissioner did not find that section 3(1)(b) of LA FOIP had any application to the withheld information and that the Applicant’s request did not meet the criteria for a fee waiver. The Commissioner recommended that the RM continue to withhold the information. The Commissioner also recommended the RM take no further action with regards to the application fee. The Commissioner further recommended the RM ensure it meet its duty to assist pursuant to section 5.1 of LA FOIP in the future by responding completely to applicants.  \nI BACKGROUND  \n[1] On January 22, 2021, the Applicant made an access to information request to the Rural Municipality of Pleasantdale No. 398 (RM) for the following:  \n[RM Administrator]  \nAdministrator resign letter  \n[2] Also on January 22, 2021, the Applicant made the required payment of $20 to the RM for services related to The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) access to information request.  \n[3] Also on January 22, 2021, the RM advised that there was no applicable reference to provide information under section 117 of The Municipalities Act. The RM concluded that section 3(1)(b) of LA FOIP did not apply to the requested information on the basis that the information was not considered a matter of public record.  \n[4] On January 26, 2021, the Applicant made a payment reimbursement request to the RM with the following message:  \n…I am requesting a refund of the $20.00 you charged me for a LA FOIP request for the copy of the letter that Debra gave council. I have checked into this and this is a public document that has been presented to council and it did not require a form or payment…  \n[5] On February 16, 2021, the RM responded to the Applicant’s access to information request with the following:  \nPlease find attached records responsive to your request. Please note that, pursuant to section 8 of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act), some of the information contained in the attached records has been deleted because if released would disclose information about an identifiable individual. Access to this information is denied pursuant to section 23(1) Section 23(1)(k)(ii) the disclosure of the name itself would reveal personal information about the individual, of the Act.  \n[6] On February 17, 2021, my office received a request for review from the Applicant.  \n[7] On February 18, 2021, the Applicant confirmed the scope of the review with my office to include the following:  \n􀁸 Wanting exemptions that have been applied to the record reviewed  \n􀁸 Disagre","cbCaihEBMtkUHjJx","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihEBMtkUHjJx","pdf",294051,9,"English","# Summary\n# Background\n## Request and payment timeline\n## Municipality response and severing of information\n## Review scope requested by the applicant\n# Records at Issue\n# Discussion of the Issues\n## Jurisdiction\n## Public record determination under section 3(1)(b)","[{\"question\":\"What records were at issue in this LA FOIP review?\",\"answer\":\"The review concerned a one-page resignation letter from a former administrator received January 10, 2021. The municipality severed information from the page when denying access.\"},{\"question\":\"What reason did the Rural Municipality give for withholding information?\",\"answer\":\"The municipality withheld portions under LA FOIP provisions related to personal information and treated the matter as not qualifying as a public record under section 3(1)(b).\"},{\"question\":\"Did the Commissioner grant the applicant a fee waiver or reimbursement?\",\"answer\":\"No. The Commissioner determined the criteria for a fee waiver were not met and recommended no further action regarding the application fee, while also recommending the municipality continue withholding the information.\"}]","LA FOIP Review Report 037-2021 - Access to Information Fee Waiver and Withheld Records | PDF"]