Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 264 and includes a client of the law firm of which the lawyer is a partner or associate, whether or not the lawyer handles the client’s work.900 This provision ensures that a government institution, as the client, has the same protection for its legal documents as persons in the private sector. Whether a solicitor-client relationship exists is a fact driven and multifaceted analysis. Sometimes, it will be readily apparent that a retainer exists. Other times, a careful examination of the facts must be undertaken.901 It is not necessary that a person formally retain a lawyer by way of letter or other document before a solicitor-client relationship can be found. Nor is it necessary that an account be rendered by the lawyer or that an account be paid. There are certain indicia that may or may not determine that such a relationship exists. These include: • A contract or retainer. • A file opened by the lawyer. • Meetings between the lawyer and the party. • Correspondence between the lawyer and the party. • A bill rendered by the lawyer to the party. • A bill paid by the party. • Instructions given by the party to the lawyer. • The lawyer acting on the instructions given. • Statements made by the lawyer that the lawyer is acting for the party. • A reasonable expectation by the party about the lawyer's role. • Legal advice given. • Any legal documents created for the party.902 The client can be an individual, corporation or government institution. The Ministry of Justice can act as legal advisors for all departments of government.903 Solicitor-client privilege can apply in the context of an in-house government lawyer providing legal advice to the government.904 However, owing to the nature of the work of in-house 900 Law Society of Saskatchewan, Code of Professional Conduct at p. 10, Definitions. 901 Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Limited¸2015 ONSC 3824 (CanLII) at [417]. 902 Jeffers v. Calico Compression Systems, 2002 ABQB 72 (CanLII) at [8]. 903 SK OIPC Review Report F-2005-002 at [26]. For this interpretation, the Commissioner, relied on The Law of Evidence in Canada. 904 R. v Campbell, [1999] 1 SCR 565.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==