There are generally no differences as to how privilege will be applied in the criminal, civil, regulatory or investigatory context. However, courts or tribunals may take into account the context when determining whether certain exceptions apply. For example, in Bone v. Person, the Manitoba Court of Appeal held that where solicitor-client privilege was waived when defending criminal charges, privilege of the same communication was deemed to be waived for subsequent civil proceedings.

Information and records that are created as a result of an internal investigation may be considered privileged and thus protected from disclosure. Both litigation privilege and solicitor-client privilege may apply to these types of documents. Litigation privilege, described above, may cover notes of interviews with employees and other documents produced during investigations. In order for the communication to be protected by litigation privilege, there must be current litigation or a reasonable contemplation of litigation and the dominant purpose of the communication must be for use in the current or contemplated litigation. Litigation need not be the only purpose for the communication; however, it must be the primary purpose. Litigation privilege is not limited to communications between solicitor and client, but can be asserted against third parties, such as third-party investigators with a duty of confidentiality. Where an investigation is preliminary, the documents or communications may not be considered privileged.

Recently, the Alberta Court of Appeal in Alberta v. Suncor Energy Inc. confirmed that the records of an internal investigation may be privileged, notwithstanding a statutory obligation to carry out an investigation and prepare a report. However, the Court of Appeal emphasized that a court must analyze the claim of privilege for each record, and cautioned against blanket claims of privilege for all documents created in the context of an investigation.