the government’s interest, it says, is in the interpretation of privacy law.
in its initial court battle with giesbrecht, sgi cited section 38 of the health information protection act (hipa) as its reason for withholding the information.
that section states information can be withheld if releasing it “could interfere with a lawful investigation or be injurious to the enforcement of an act or regulation.”
essentially, the government’s written submission (technically called a factum) states it is looking for clarity from the court on how to interpret that part of the law, noting the interpretation will also have an effect on the freedom of information and protection of privacy act (foip).
clarity is needed so government employees can properly apply the law when handling information, the factum states, noting that the government’s “traditional” interpretation is different than the one adopted by the king’s bench judge.
giesbrecht’s case engages the issue of information being withheld due to potential harm from releasing it. while the government states its understanding was that, in cases such as giesbrecht’s, information could be withheld when harm is “merely possible,” the factum contends the judge determined that there needed to be “a reasonable expectation of probable harm” — a higher “standard of harm.”