Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 234 Solicitor-client privilege can apply in the context of an in-house local authority lawyer providing legal advice to the local authority.788 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.789 Communications can be written or verbal.790 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.791 Written communications between officials or employees of a local authority, quoting the legal advice given orally by the local authority’s solicitor, or employee’s notes documenting the legal advice given orally by the solicitor could qualify. This includes notes “to file” in which legal advice is quoted or discussed.792 The privilege does not attach to advice provided by someone who is not a lawyer; the advice must be sought from a professional legal advisor in his or her capacity as such.793 Where the communication itself, between client and solicitor, constitutes a criminal act, or counsels someone to commit a crime, the privilege will not apply.794 788 R. v Campbell, [1999] 1 SCR 565. 789 John Sopinka et al., The Law of Evidence in Canada, 5th Ed (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2018) at § 14.125. 790 Susan Hosiery Limited v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 27, [1969] C.T.C. 353 at p. 33. 791 British Columbia (Minister of Finance) v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2021 BCSC 266 at [110] to [112]. 792 AB IPC Order 99-013 at [62] to [66]. 793 Solosky v. The Queen, [1980] 1 SCR 821, 1979 CanLII 9 (SCC). 794 Stevens v. Canada (Prime Minister), [1998] 4 FC 89, 1998 CanLII 9075 (FCA).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==