Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 262 3. The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be sedulously fostered. 4. The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of the litigation.889 • Settlement privilege: a privilege that applies to the discussions leading up to a resolution of a dispute in the face of litigation. It promotes the settlement of lawsuits.890 The existence of the privilege is determined by a three-part test: 1. The existence or contemplation of a litigious dispute; 2. Communications that are made with the intention they remain confidential if negotiations failed; and 3. The purpose of the communications was to achieve a settlement.891 • Mediation privilege: is closely related to settlement privilege. Settlement relates, in the main, to discussions and negotiations leading up to the settlement of a dispute which culminate in a final settlement agreement. Mediation privilege, on the other hand, relates to steps taken to resolve a dispute, typically, outside a traditional court or other adjudicative process. Generally speaking, participation in mediation is voluntary, and this reality underlies the public policy rationale for maintaining confidentiality over mediation processes.892 • Statutory privilege: a legal privilege established by an act or by a regulation.893 Solicitor-client privilege The purpose of solicitor-client privilege is to assure clients of confidentiality and enable them to speak honestly and candidly with their legal representatives.894 The privilege has long been 889 CB, HK & RD v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 21, 2017 CanLII 68786 (SK LRB) at [40] to [42]. 890 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 201. 891 CB, HK & RD v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 21, 2017 CanLII 68786 (SK LRB) at [35]. 892 CB, HK & RD v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 21, 2017 CanLII 68786 (SK LRB) at [43]. See also SK OIPC Review Report 171-2019 at [110]. 893 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 201. 894 Smith v Jones, [1999] 1 SCR 455 at [46].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==