|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
PO-2154
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
PA-020231-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Attorney General
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL The Ministry of the Attorney General (the Ministry) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to: All records at the Ministry on the tender awarded to [an identified law firm] for the legal work associated with the proposed privatization of Hydro One. The Ministry identified 5 responsive records and denied access to all of them pursuant to section 19 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Act . The Ministry also claimed section 17 (third party information) as an alternative exemption for portions of Records 4 and 5. The requester, now the appellant, appealed the Ministry's decision. During mediation, the Ministry identified sections 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 18(1)(c) (economic and other interests) as alternative exemption claims for portions of Records 2, 3, 4 and 5. The Mediator added these discretionary exemptions to the scope of the appeal. Mediation did not resolve the issues in dispute and the file was transferred to the adjudication stage of the appeal process. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Ministry and the identified law firm (the affected party), inviting submissions on the issues raised in the appeal. Both parties submitted representations. In its representations, the Ministry purported to expand the 13(1) claim to additional portions of Records 4 and 5, and section 18(1)(c) for additional portions of Records 3, 4 and 5. As a result, I added the late raising of discretionary exemptions as an issue in the inquiry. The Ministry also identified the possible application of the mandatory section 21 exemption (invasion of privacy) for certain described portions of Records 4 and 5. I revised the Notice of Inquiry to accommodate these new issues, and sent it, along with a copy of the Ministry's representations, to the appellant. The appellant responded with brief representations. RECORDS The 5 records at issue in this appeal consist of 22 pages, including e-mails, memoranda and a routing form. Specifically, they can be described as follows: Record 1: 1-page e-mail chain between Ministry officials re retention of private sector counsel. Record 2: 1-page cover sheet with note concerning named senior Ministry official; 1-page Ministry Routing Form re retention of private sector counsel; and 3-page signed and partially approved memorandum from Director of Legal Services, Ministry of Finance, to Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General re retention of private sector counsel. Record 3: 1-page e-mail from Director of Legal Services, Ministry of Finance, to Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General re retainer approval; 2-page draft memorandum from Director of Legal Services, Ministry of Finance, to Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General re retention of private sector counsel; and 3-page draft memorandum from Director of Legal Services, Ministry of Finance, to Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General re retention of private sector counsel. Record 4: 1-page e-mail from Director of Legal Services, Ministry of Finance, to Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General re retention of private sector counsel; and 3-page draft memorandum from Director of Legal Services, Ministry of Finance, to Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General re retention of private sector counsel. Record 5: 1-page e-mail chain between government officials re retention of private sector counsel; and 4-page draft memorandum from Director of Legal Services, Ministry of Finance, to Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General re retention of private sector counsel. DISCUSSION: SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE The Ministry claims that all of the records at issue are exempt under section 19 of the Act . General principles Section 19 of the Act reads: A head may refuse to disclose a record that is subject to solicitor-client privilege or that was prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice or in contemplation of or for use in litigation. Section 19 contains two branches. Branch 1 includes two common law privileges: solicitor-client communication privilege; and litigation privilege. Branch 2 contains two analogous statutory privileges that apply in the context of Crown counsel giving legal advice or conducting litigation. Here, the Ministry relies on solicitor-client communication privilege under both branches. The Ministry does not rely on litigation privilege under either branch. I will first consider the application of common law solicitor-client communication privilege under Branch 1. Common law solicitor-client communication privilege under Branch 1 General principles Solicitor-client communication privilege protects direct communications of a confidential nature between a solicitor and client, or their agents or employees, made for the purpose of obtaining or giving professional legal advice [ Descôteaux v. Mierzwinski (1982), 141 D.L.R. (3d) 590 (S.C.C.)]. The rationale for this privilege is to ensure that a client may confide in his or her lawyer on a legal matter without reservation [Order P-1551]. The privilege applies to "a continuum of communications" between a solicitor and client: . . . Where information is passed by the solicitor or client to the other as part of the continuum aimed at keeping both informed so that advice may be sought and given as required, privilege will attach [ Balabel v. Air India , [1988] 2 W.L.R. 1036 at 1046 (Eng. C.A.)]. The privilege may also apply to the legal advisor's working papers directly related to seeking, formulating or giving legal advice [ Susan Hosiery Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue , [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 27]. Confidentiality is an essential component of the privilege. Therefore, the institution must demonstrate that the communication was made in confidence, either expressly or by implication [ General Accident Assurance Co. v. Chrusz (1999), 45 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.)]. Representations The appellant submits: It is our client's position that the records requested ought to be disclosed. However, because of the intensely fact-based analysis that must be done on the documents in order to make informed representations on the exemptions the head has claimed, and because our client and/or its counsel have not been provided with access to the documents, our client has no choice but to rely on [the Commissioner's office] to carefully analyse the records to determine if all of the records requested indeed were created on an occasion of solicitor-client privilege. The Ministry submits: ... all of these records relate to the retention of private sector counsel. They are all communications between solicitor and client and are made confidentially for the purpose of giving or seeking legal advice. The memos are from the Director of the Office of Legal Services, Ministry of Finance and analyze the legal issues involved in this matter. The memos provide legal advice relating to the need for retention of private sector counsel, and seek instruct
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Mitchinson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jun 10, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|