Saskatchewan’s information and privacy commissioner has recommended that the Rural Municipality of Weyburn No. 67 search again for property purchase and renovation records, without charging the applicant more processing fees, after finding it failed to clarify what the applicant wanted.
In Review Report 024-2026, dated October 22, Commissioner Grace Hession David found that the municipality had not met its statutory duty to assist. That failure made its search deficient.
She recommended a fresh search within 30 days of the report for any blueprints, engineered drawings and comparison quotes from different companies concerning the purchase and renovation. The recommendation also calls for a new decision letter explaining the search outcome and no further fees for processing materials the new search produces.
Request led to records but no initial decision letter
The applicant asked in June 2025 for invoices and documents concerning the purchase and renovation of a property. After the municipality approved an access-to-information policy that month, it asked for the required $20 application fee, which it received on July 3.
The municipality sought another $76 for searching and processing on July 31. The applicant paid and received records, but no accompanying decision letter explaining the exemptions applied, as required by section 7 of Saskatchewan’s Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The applicant requested a review in January 2026. After the commissioner’s office raised the missing letter, the municipality issued one on August 19. It identified 64 responsive pages, seven withheld under the statutory exemption for third-party personal information.
Those withheld pages were not the issue decided in this review. The applicant expressly declined a review of the privacy exemption and instead questioned whether the search should have uncovered drawings and comparison quotes. The commissioner reviewed the search, not the legality of withholding those seven pages.
Both sides had responsibilities
The commissioner explained that a reasonable search requires a thorough effort by an experienced employee to locate records reasonably related to a request. It does not require an exhaustive search or absolute certainty about whether more records exist.
Applicants challenging a search also need evidence beyond suspicion. Here, the applicant did not provide a submission and supplied no evidence that the additional records existed, apart from identifying documents believed to be missing. The commissioner criticized that lack of assistance.
The municipality said it had understood the request to concern purchase records and renovation invoices and documentation. It said it supplied the property listing, purchase contract, title transfer, development permits, invoices, building agreement, progress listing and change orders. Technical drawings and comparison quotes had not been expressly identified in the original request, it argued.
The commissioner accepted that the request was broad. But under section 5.1(1), the municipality had a duty to respond openly, accurately and completely, including seeking necessary clarification about the request’s scope. It should have contacted the applicant to narrow the search or identify particular documents sought, whether or not those documents ultimately existed.
That conversation would also have helped establish reasonable search parameters and applicable fees. Its absence was the basis for the finding that the municipality had not met its duty to assist.
Municipality acknowledged need for clarification
In its submission, the municipality acknowledged the duty to clarify uncertain requests and said it had updated its approach to future requests. The commissioner commended it for recognizing the problem itself and said the report was intended to help other rural municipalities facing similar requests.
The municipality nevertheless preferred a new, more specific application, processed through its usual fee procedures. The commissioner considered the report sufficient to establish the new search’s scope. Given the $76 already paid and the late decision letter, she concluded that fairness required no additional fees.
The recommended remedy is a new search and decision, not a refund of the fees already paid or an order to disclose particular records. The report does not establish that the drawings or comparison quotes exist, or that the municipality has since completed the recommended search.
