CRD Watch Homepage

The District of Saanich is hiding how much it paid the Procurement Law Office behind solicitor client privilege.


By Sasha Izard
Dec 9, 2025


Recently, I wrote the following article:

District of Saanich: “I have determined that while the records concerning the Procurement Law Office may be of interest to you, there is not evidence to indicate this matter has an impact on the wider community.” – The Procurement Law Office’s advice was cited at a council meeting as justification to award senior district staff the ability to award millions in contracts without the approval of elected officials. – CRD Watch Homepage

—————————————————————————————————

On Nov 7, 2025 I wrote the following email to Saanich’s Director of Finance Paul Arslan:

Hello Paul,

I would like to see how much money the District has paid to the Procurement Law Office from Jan 1, 2022 to Nov 1, 2025

Thank you,
Sasha Izard

—————————————————————————————————

After not receiving a response after 10 days, I wrote Paul again:

Hello Paul,

Are you going to answer the question?

Thank you,
Sasha

—————————————————————————————————

The following day on Nov 18, 2025, Paul responded:

Hi Sasha,

I have sent the response to our FOI division as the payment is to legal firm, and they need to review it first for solicitor/client privilege.  They will contact you when they are done.

Regards,


—————————————————————————————————

I replied,

Hello Paul,

Thank you. 

However, how can payment information be subject to Solicitor/Client Privilege?

– Sasha

—————————————————————————————————

Paul replied,

Hi Sasha,

That is not my area of expertise which is why it was sent to them for review.

—————————————————————————————————

On Dec 8, 2024 I received the FOI response from the District:

I have attached a record provided by the Finance Department responsive to your request. As you review the record you will note that the total amount paid has been severed. This is because the information is protected from disclosure under Section 14 of the Act. In this case, it was deemed that disclosure of the information severed is subject to solicitor client privilege.

—————————————————————————————————

This was the entire record that was attached with the letter:

—————————————————————————————————

This is what FOIPPA states for s.14:

Legal advice
14  The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that is subject to solicitor client privilege.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

—————————————————————————————————

Yet, what I was asking for was not legal advice, it was simply the amount the District had paid a private company, presumably for legal advice, but the amount paid which was censored by the District, was not legal advice.

Also, S.14 is discretionary. The term “may refuse” is used for S.14 in FOIPPA. It is not necessary to refuse to disclose the information, as Saanich did.

I replied,

Hello,

Under what rationale does the District consider the amount that the District has paid to the Procurement Law Office falls under solicitor-client privilege?

Thank you,
Sasha

—————————————————————————————————

I await a response.

—————————————————————————————————

Appendix: The FOI Response letter from the District of Saanich

—————————————————————————————————

Appendix 2: Response from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in regards to my Freedom of Information complaint.

—————————————————————————————————

According to the OIPC, the amount is under solicitor-client privilege.

The examples, the OIPC provided to me from case law, refer to actual disputes, yet it does not look like what I was asking for was legal advice in regard to disputes, but rather advice on procurement policy.

This is a major danger for democracy that creates vast gaps in transparency. Can entire budget items be removed from public view if the government spent money on advice on legal issues?

Do branches of government, including local government have legal black budgets?

At the end of the day Section 14. of FOIPPA is discretionary, the District does not have to hide the amount, they have paid the Procurement Law Office, but the OIPC’s interpretation of FOIPPA is allowing them to hide it.

—————————————————————————————————

I replied to the OIPC:

Thank you for your response.

While I see from what you have shown me – that the District can have legal costs redacted in an FOI response, I cannot see how they can hide that cost in the budget.  It was initially a budget question to the finance department that I made as to the amount requested, that the finance department subsequently turned into an FOI request (I had not requested for it to be turned into an FOI request).  

Can a District not include such an amount in its published budget, under solicitor-client privilege?

The examples that you provided me from Case Law apply to legal matters regarding disputes, but from what I understand the payments made to the Procurement Law Office were not in regard to legal disputes, but rather in regard to advice on procurement policy.

Can the cost of policy advice be redacted under S.14?

Thank you again,

Sasha Izard

—————————————————————————————————


See also:

Petition · That Section 13 of British Columbia’s Freedom of Information Legislation FOIPPA be removed – Canada · Change.org

Index of articles regarding Law and Bylaw – CRD Watch Homepage

Index of Exorbitant Cost Estimates Provided for Freedom of Information in British Columbia – CRD Watch Homepage

District of Saanich: “I have determined that while the records concerning the Procurement Law Office may be of interest to you, there is not evidence to indicate this matter has an impact on the wider community.” – The Procurement Law Office’s advice was cited at a council meeting as justification to award senior district staff the ability to award millions in contracts without the approval of elected officials. – CRD Watch Homepage