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.
By Christine Pound, ICD.D, Rebecca Saturley, & Daniel Roth Canada’s anti-modern slavery legislation comes into force on January 1, 2024. To prepare for the first reporting deadline on May 31, 2024, organizations need to determine…Read More
By Brian Johnston, K.C. and Richard Jordan On November 9, 2023, Minister of Labour, Seamus O’Regan, introduced Bill C-58 in the House of Commons to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of…Read More
By Kevin Landry & Eryka Gregory The Retail Payment Activities Regulations (“Regulations”) under the Retail Payment Activities Act (“RPAA”) were finalized and published in the Canada Gazette Part II on November 23, 2023. The RPAA was…Read More
By Kevin Landry On November 9 2023, Bill C-365, An Act respecting the implementation of a consumer-led banking system for Canadians (“C-365”), short titled as the ‘Consumer-led Banking Act’ was read in the House of…Read More
By Jennifer Taylor The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (“NSCA”) has issued an important decision clarifying the test to disallow a limitations defence. The decision, Halifax (Regional Municipality) v Carvery (“Carvery”), has real implications for personal…Read More
By Deanne MacLeod, K.C., Burtley Francis & David Slipp On September 21, 2023, the Federal Government introduced Bill C-56: An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act (“Bill C-56”), with the…Read More
By Nancy Rubin, K.C. and Lauren Agnew The long-awaited Green Choice Program Regulations (N.S. Reg. 155/2023) were released by the provincial government on September 8, 2023, offering some clarity into the practical implementation of Nova…Read More
By Koren Thomson, John Samms, and Matthew Raske The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal has held that the Information and Privacy Commissioner for this province (the “Commissioner”) does not have the authority to order…Read More
By Perlene Morrison, K.C. Municipalities are required to pass code of conduct bylaws in accordance with section 107 of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). Subsection 107(1) of the MGA specifically states that a municipality’s…Read More
By Sheila Mecking and Kathleen Starke On August 23, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court (“ONSC”) upheld a complaints decision which ordered a psychologist to complete a continuing education or remedial program regarding professionalism in public…Read More