Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications
After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the ground of solicitor-client privilege.1 The school board had refused to disclose the records in response to a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.2 In a long-awaited decision, the Privacy Commissioner recognized solicitor-client privilege as an essential part of our legal system – even in the context of access to information legislation – and concluded that the school board acted properly when it refused to disclose the records. For public bodies and their lawyers, the decision represents an important safeguard for the full, frank, and free exchange of information that is at the core of the solicitor-client relationship.
Section 25(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Actprovides that, in response to a request for access to information, a public body “may refuse to disclose … information that is subject to any type of legal privilege, including solicitor-client privilege.”3 The exception to disclosure is a discretionary one. And any decision refusing disclosure is liable to review by the Privacy Commissioner.4
In this case, the local school board, after receiving a request for all records related to the person making the request, located sixty-one records that it claimed were subject to solicitor-client privilege. The school board relied upon section 25(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and exercised its discretion to refuse disclosure. The person making the request sought review of that decision. The Privacy Commissioner then issued an order demanding production of the records in question. The school board objected to production and questioned whether the Privacy Commissioner had the legal authority to compel records protected by solicitor-client privilege.5 In the interest of resolving the matter, the school board eventually produced the records for inspection by the Privacy Commissioner. However, the school board maintained its objection to production and continued to assert that the records were privileged.
In the years that followed, the parties made detailed submissions to the Privacy Commissioner.6 The school board also made representations in private as authorized by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.7 In the end, the Privacy Commissioner agreed with the decision made by the school board. The records were found to be privileged and not disclosed.
Message for Public Bodies
As the Privacy Commissioner acknowledged in her decision, this review process – although lengthy – was her first opportunity to clarify the boundaries of solicitor-client privilege under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.8 For public bodies and their lawyers, the decision provides a valuable summary of the applicable principles:
- solicitor-client privilege is an essential part of our legal system even in the context of legislation aimed at public access to information;9
- a public body is not required to sever portions of a record subject to solicitor-client privilege for partial disclosure;10
- solicitor-client privilege belongs to the public body and not an individual member of the public body;11
- in order for solicitor-client privilege to be applicable, it is not necessary for the communication to specifically request or offer legal advice;12
- solicitor-client privilege includes factual information, background documents, and other material that a public body provides to its lawyer as part of the continuum of communication related to seeking, formulating, or giving legal advice;13
- solicitor-client privilege includes documents generated by a public body that reference or discuss the legal advice received from its lawyer;14
- there is a rebuttable presumption that invoices from a lawyer are subject to solicitor-client privilege;15 and
- a waiver of solicitor-client privilege by a public body requires a clear intention to voluntarily relinquish the privilege.16
In summary, while the claim of solicitor-client privilege was ultimately upheld by the Privacy Commissioner, her decision is mandatory reading for public bodies – and their lawyers – in Prince Edward Island.
If you have any questions about this update, please do not hesitate to contact our team at Stewart McKelvey in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. The local school board in this case was represented by Rosemary Scott, QC and Jonathan Coady.
1 Order No. FI-17-004 (8 March 2017).
2 R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. F-15.01.
3 Ibid., s. 25(1)(a).
4 Ibid., s. 60(1).
5 The Supreme Court of Canada has recently confirmed that the Alberta Privacy Commissioner has no such authority. The legislation in Alberta and Prince Edward Island is identical in this regard. See Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53.
6 The Privacy Commissioner was directed, in particular, to recent decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada safeguarding solicitor-client privilege. See e.g. Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health, 2008 SCC 44, Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2016 SCC 20, and Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21.
7 Supra note 2, s. 64(3).
8 Supra note 1 at para. 61.
9 Ibid. at para. 13.
10 Ibid. at para. 14.
11 Ibid. at paras. 26-29.
12 Ibid. at para. 34.
15 Ibid. at paras. 40-41.
16 Ibid. at para. 47.
Jennifer Taylor In an important decision for the auto insurance industry, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has confirmed that future CPP disability benefits are indeed deductible from damages awarded in Nova Scotia cases for…Read More
Brian Johnston, QC and Matthew Jacobs Bill C-86, enacted as SC 2018, c. 27, will effect massive changes upon how federal labour and employment relations are regulated. They come into effect in 2019 with staggered…Read More
We can all make 2019 a success by building on the year that was. For employers, 2018 was a year of many notable developments in labour and employment law across the country. We saw Ontario…Read More
Level Chan and Dante Manna As 2018 comes to an end, we countdown some pension and employee benefits developments in the last year that we anticipate may lead to developments in 2019. Discrimination in benefits…Read More
Kevin Landry The first look at regulations for cannabis edibles, extracts and topicals has arrived. The Federal Government has opened a 60-day consultation period respecting the strict regulation of additional cannabis products. Notice of the consultation was accompanied…Read More
Erin Best and Kara Harrington “This case is about pain, how it was caused, by what accident and the opinions of dueling experts.”¹ “In this case, like so many, the assessment of the evidence depends…Read More
Jonathan Coady and Michael Fleischmann Overview Once again, the time has come to review the year that was and to chart the course for the year ahead. For municipalities, developers and planning professionals throughout Prince…Read More
Following the various Stakeholder Consultations (which Stewart McKelvey participated in on behalf of Nova Scotia Employers), the Government has changed the Labour Standards Code Regulations effective January 1, 2019 to: a) provide for up to…Read More
Version française à suivre Sara Espinal Henao Canada has expanded its permanent and temporary immigration requirements to include biometrics – the measurement of unique physical characteristics, such as fingerprints and facial features. The new requirements,…Read More
Many businesses rely on trade-mark, copyright, and patent law for the protection of their intellectual property (IP). The Federal Government recently proposed changes to IP laws, which may impact your business. Bill C-86, Budget Implementation Act,…Read More