Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 269 his lawyer kept confidential, the resulting conflict should be resolved in favour of protecting the confidentiality. 3. When the law gives someone the authority to do something which, in the circumstances of the case, might interfere with that confidentiality, the decision to do so and the choice of means of exercising that authority should be determined with a view to not interfering with it except to the extent absolutely necessary in order to achieve the ends sought by the enabling legislation. 4. Acts providing otherwise in situations under paragraph 2 and enabling legislation referred to in paragraph 3 must be interpreted restrictively.932 By the nature of the records themselves, implicit confidentiality could be intended.933 Express statements of an intention of confidentiality on records may qualify. For example, email confidentiality clauses if they are specific to the communication (i.e., wording and content). Standard confidentiality clauses in the footers of emails would not apply.934 Communications made in order to facilitate the commission of a crime or fraud will not be confidential, regardless of whether or not the lawyer is acting in good faith.935 An applicant is entitled to general identifying information, such as the description of the document (for example, the “memorandum” heading and internal file identification), the name, title and address of the person to whom the communication was directed, the subject line, the generally innocuous opening words and closing words of the communication and the signature block.936 A lawyer’s bill of accounts and itemized disbursements are protected including: the terms and amount of the retainer; the arrangements with respect to payment; the type of services rendered and their cost – all these matters are central to the solicitor-client relationship.937 932 Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski, 1982 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1982] 1 SCR 860 at p. 16. 933 AB IPC Orders F2004-003 at [30] and F2007-008 at [14]. Relied on in SK OIPC Review Report F2014-001 at [264]. 934 SK OIPC Review Report F-2012-003 at [80] to [81]. 935 Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski, [1982] 1 SCR 860, 1982 CanLII 22 (SCC). 936 Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2005 FC 1551, at [49]. 937 Stevens v. Canada (Prime Minister), [1998] 4 FC 89, 1998 CanLII 9075 (FCA) and Maranda v. Richer, [2003] 3 SCR 193, 2003 SCC 67 (CanLII).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==