Solosky v R
supreme Court of Canada case
Solosky v R (1979), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on solicitor-client privilege. The court identified solicitor-client privilege as more than just a rule of evidence but as a fundamental right to all individuals.
Background
Billy Solosky was an inmate at the Millhaven corrections institute. All mail was subject to screening by officers of the prison under the Penitentiary Act. Solosky sought an application to prevent the screening of correspondence with his lawyer under solicitor-client privilege.
Reasons of the court
Justice Dickson, writing for the majority, held that Solosky had a right to privilege in all of his correspondence between him and his lawyer. Though privilege has its origins as an evidentiary rule to protect parties in a litigation, it has become available to all clients seeking legal advice.
The criteria to gain the protection of solicitor-client privilege requires "(i) a communication between solicitor and client; (ii) which entails the seeking or giving of legal advice; and (iii) which is intended to be confidential by the parties" (p. 834)
Dickson, however, stated that privilege did not apply where legal advice is not sought or offered, where it is not intended to be confidential, and where its purpose is to further unlawful conduct. (p.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Solosky v R” is supreme Court of Canada case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Solosky, supreme and Court, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “supreme Court of Canada case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 7, 2020. The linked authority identifier is Q7558843. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1979 and 1980.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Solosky v R”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Solosky v R primary sources, Solosky v R archive and Solosky research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Solosky v R”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Solosky v R” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.