Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 24 July 2025. 235 2. Does the communication entail the seeking or giving of legal advice? The scope of solicitor-client privilege is broad. It applies to all communications made with a view of obtaining legal advice.795 If a communication falls somewhere within the continuum of that necessary exchange of information, the object of which is the giving or receiving of legal advice, it is protected by solicitor-client privilege.796 Legal advice means a legal opinion about a legal issue, and a recommended course of action, based on legal considerations, regarding a matter with legal implications.797 The second part of the test is satisfied where the person seeking advice has a reasonable concern that a particular decision or course of action may have legal implications and turns to their legal advisor to determine what those legal implications might be.798 The privilege applies not only to the records that actually give the legal advice but also to those that seek it and that provide factual information relative to which the advice is sought.799 Background information can be included as part of the definition of legal advice because it forms part of the “continuum of communication” between a solicitor and his or her client.800 Statements of fact are not themselves privileged. It is the communication of those facts between a client and a lawyer that is privileged.801 The privilege applies to records that quote or discuss the legal advice. For example, information in written communications between officials or employees of a local authority in which the officials or employees quote or discuss the legal advice given by the local authority’s solicitor.802 795 Leo v. Global Transportation Hub Authority, 2019 SKQB 150 (CanLII) at [67], Maranda v Richer, 2003 SCC 67, [2003] 3 CR 193. 796 Leo v. Global Transportation Hub Authority, 2019 SKQB 150 (CanLII) at [67], Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Canada (Information Commissioner), 2013 FCA 104, 360 DLR (4th) 176; Redhead Equipment v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SKCA 115, 402 DLR (4th) 649. 797 Definition originated from ON Order P-210 at p. 18. Adopted in SK OIPC Review Report F-2012-003 at [97]. Definition also adopted by AB IPC in Order 96-017. 798 AB IPC Order F2004-003 at [29]. 799 AB IPC Order F2004-003 at [31]. 800 AB IPC Order F2013-42 at [20]. 801 Stevens v. Canada (Prime Minister), [1984] 4 F.C. 89 (Fed. C.A.) at p. 109. 802 AB IPC Order 96-020 at [133] to [134]. Consistent with Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Can. v. Canada (Deputy Attorney General), [1988], 28 C.P.C. (2D) 101 (Ont. H.C.).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==