Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 264 • 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.893 • Statutory privilege: a legal privilege established by an act or by a regulation.894 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.895 The privilege has long been recognized as “fundamental to the proper functioning of our legal system”896 and a cornerstone of access to justice. It has evolved from a rule of evidence to a substantive rule that is more nuanced than simply any communications between lawyer and client. In Solosky v. The Queen, (1980), Justice Dickson regarded the rule of solicitor-client privilege as a “fundamental civil and legal right” that guaranteed clients a right to privacy in their communications with their lawyers. Furthermore, that solicitor-client privilege must be claimed document by document, and that each document must meet the three-part test. The following three-part test can be applied:897 1. Is the record a communication between solicitor and client? In Descoteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski, (1982), Justice Lamer outlined a very liberal approach to the scope of the privilege by extending it to include all communications made “within the framework of the solicitor-client relationship.” The protection is very strong, as long as the person claiming the privilege is within the framework. 893 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]. 894 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 4 at p. 201. 895 Smith v Jones, [1999] 1 SCR 455 at [46]. 896 Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health, [2008] 2 SCR 574, 2008 SCC 44 (CanLII) at [9]. 897 Established by Justice Dickson in Solosky v The Queen, [1980] 1 SCR 821, 1979 CanLII 9 (SCC) at [28]. This test has consistently been applied and the case has not been overturned or overtaken by subsequent jurisprudence.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==