Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 266 • 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.903 The client can be an individual, corporation or government institution. The Ministry of Justice can act as legal advisors for all departments of government.904 Solicitor-client privilege can apply in the context of an in-house government lawyer providing legal advice to the government.905 However, owing to the nature of the work of in-house counsel (i.e., having both legal and non-legal responsibilities), each situation must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine if the privilege arises in the circumstances.906 Communications can be written or verbal.907 The privilege does not necessarily apply to attachments to documents (e.g., attachments to emails) even those attached to genuine legal advice. On the other hand, an attachment that is an integral part of a legal opinion in the covering email or document could be privileged. For example, if the attachment would provide some basis for a reader to determine some or all of the opinion or advice. The party claiming privilege over an attachment must provide some basis for the claim. The point is that it is the content of the communication and who is communicating, not the form of the communication that determines privilege and confidentiality. Furthermore, it makes no practical sense to parse the contents of attachments in order to sever the parts that are privileged from the parts that are not. If some of the attachment is part of the legal advice, then all of it is protected by solicitor-client privilege.908 Written communications between officials or employees of a government institution, quoting the legal advice given orally by the government institution’s solicitor, or employee’s notes 903 Jeffers v. Calico Compression Systems, 2002 ABQB 72 (CanLII) at [8]. 904 SK OIPC Review Report F-2005-002 at [26]. For this interpretation, the Commissioner, relied on The Law of Evidence in Canada. 905 R. v Campbell, [1999] 1 SCR 565. 906 John Sopinka et al., The Law of Evidence in Canada, 5th Ed (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2018) at § 14.125. 907 Susan Hosiery Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 27, [1969] C.T.C. 353 at p. 33. 908 British Columbia (Minister of Finance) v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2021 BCSC 266 at [110] to [112].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==