WCRM158 should release non-exempt portions of Hunter Creek records, commissioner recommends

WCRM158 should release the non-exempt portions of two Hunter Creek engineering documents while continuing to withhold their protected advice and analysis, Saskatchewan’s information and privacy commissioner recommended in Review Report 176-2026, dated October 21, 2026.

Commissioner Grace Hession David found that WCRM158 (Wastewater Management Authority Inc.) had not justified withholding the entire 20-page record. She recommended releasing specified portions to the applicant within 30 days of the report’s issuance, while supporting continued withholding of the protected material.

Request covered two engineering documents

The applicant sought the Hunter Creek risk assessment and related documents on April 1, 2026, under The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). WCRM158 refused access in full on May 4, relying on the discretionary exemptions in sections 16(1)(a) and 16(1)(e). The applicant requested a review the next day.

The responsive record comprised a four-page Hunter Creek Four Season Discharge cover letter and a 16-page Technical Memorandum: Effluent Freeze-up Analysis for Hunter Creek Four Season Discharge. MPE Engineering prepared both for WCRM158’s consideration of future wastewater management matters.

The commissioner’s office notified the parties of the review on June 3. WCRM158 supplied the record, an index and a written submission on June 16, but did not consent to sharing its index or submission with the applicant. The applicant provided no submission.

The report identified WCRM158 as a joint utility board created by the Town of White City and the Rural Municipality of Edenwold No. 158. Reviewing the municipalities’ bylaws, their agreement, The Municipalities Act and LA FOIP’s regulations, the commissioner concluded that the board was a local authority subject to review under LA FOIP.

Advice was protected, but ordinary descriptive material was not

For section 16(1)(a), the commissioner asked whether the information was advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options, and whether it had been developed by or for the local authority. Work by an outside consultant could qualify. MPE had created these documents for WCRM158, satisfying the second part of that test for the substantive material.

Paragraphs 2 through 12 of the letter qualified for protection. They included the scope of MPE’s work and evaluation, detailed guidance and recommended courses of action. Some facts were sufficiently interwoven with the advice and analysis that they could not reasonably be treated as separate information.

The protected memorandum material ran from the final paragraph of page 1 through page 15. It covered the scientific foundation, investigation, analysis and recommendations. Photographs, illustrations and literature reviews used to develop evaluations and guidance were also inseparable from the protected material.

Other passages did not qualify. In the letter, the header, first paragraph, thirteenth paragraph and footer supplied ordinary identifying information, an introductory description and formal closing material rather than advice or analysis.

In the memorandum, page 1 before its final paragraph set out identifying details and factual background, including three possible options available to the authority. Page 16 was a scientific bibliography. The commissioner found neither segment to be advice, recommendations or analysis.

Pending decisions did not justify withholding the remaining passages

Section 16(1)(e) required a separate assessment: was this information of the local authority, and could its disclosure reasonably be expected to reveal a pending policy or budgetary decision? The commissioner considered that exemption only for the portions not already protected under section 16(1)(a).

The documents contained information of WCRM158 because MPE had compiled it through research commissioned for the authority’s use. But releasing the remaining greetings, closings, explanatory material and bibliography would not disclose a pending policy or budgetary decision. The second exemption therefore did not protect those portions.

WCRM158 had argued that severing the documents was not reasonably possible because recommendations, analyses, proposals and budgetary considerations were intertwined throughout an ongoing deliberative process. The commissioner rejected that blanket position. Section 8 required access to as much of the record as could reasonably be separated without revealing exempt information. The authority had failed to comply.

A recommendation for partial disclosure

The final recommendations preserved the section 16(1)(a) protection and called for release within 30 days of the non-exempt portions identified in the report. They did not recommend disclosure of the engineering record in full.

These were recommendations, not a court order. The review decided access and severability, not whether a Hunter Creek project was viable, approved for discharge or environmentally safe. The report does not establish whether WCRM158 subsequently released the specified material.