Decisions affecting Ontario’s Greenbelt are of significant public interest, engaging important environmental sustainability and governance implications. Established in 2005, the Greenbelt was designed to protect environmentally sensitive land, agricultural areas, and natural heritage systems from urban sprawl. Any changes to its boundaries or protections must be carefully deliberated and decided with utmost transparency and accountability.
In November 2022, the government announced the removal of almost 2,000 acres of land from the Greenbelt to support housing development. This decision sparked widespread public outcry, particularly given previous assurances that the Greenbelt would remain untouched. Investigations by the Auditor General of Ontario and the Ontario Integrity Commissioner revealed serious flaws in the decision-making and record-keeping processes, raising concerns about transparency, fairness, and legal compliance.
Throughout 2022 and 2023, the IPC received 30 freedom of information appeals filed by researchers, members of the media, and other concerned individuals seeking access to records documenting government discussions, decisions, and actions related to the Greenbelt.
The appeal process under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) grants the IPC broad authority to review the government’s responses to access to information requests. This includes the authority to review the reasonableness of the government’s search for requested records and any government claims that the records either do not exist, are not within its custody or control, or are exempted or excluded from access under the act.
While many appeals are mediated and informally resolved at earlier stages of the IPC’s dispute resolution process, some cases proceed to adjudication. At the end of a formal adjudication process, the IPC may uphold the institution’s decision as compliant with FIPPA and dismiss the requester’s appeal. Conversely, the IPC may issue binding orders requiring the institution to, for example, conduct another search, issue another decision, or release responsive records to the requester in whole or in part.
This appeal process before an independent decision-maker, like the IPC, provides a fair and impartial means for ensuring compliance with FIPPA and reinforcing Ontarians' fundamental right to access government information. It also provides our office with a broad overview of multiple access requests in respect of the same or related matters and how they are treated across institutions. This gives us a unique vantage point to identify systemic issues or trends and make recommendations for achieving the act’s purposes of access to information and transparency in relation to government decision-making.
To date, the IPC has processed 19 access to information appeals related to the proposed changes to the Greenbelt boundaries. Collectively, these cases revealed some concerning issues of a systemic nature, including the following:
Deletion of emails
In her Greenbelt report of 2023, the Auditor General observed that emails relating to changes to the Greenbelt were regularly being deleted by political staff, contrary to the Archives and Record Keeping Act (ARA). This observation raised concerns that records relating to the Greenbelt decision making process that were the subject of access requests and appeals might be lost or destroyed. Accordingly, the IPC issued an exceptional pre-emptive order in one of the first Greenbelt-related appeals. In this interim order (PO-4449-I), the IPC required the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to take all reasonable measures to preserve any responsive records relating to the withdrawal of lands from the Greenbelt Plan in accordance with its obligations under the act and the ARA. If any such records had been deleted or destroyed, the IPC ordered the ministry to take steps to recover them.
In response to this order, the ministry provided affidavit evidence outlining the steps it had since taken to preserve records relating to Greenbelt Plan amendments and to recover deleted emails to the extent reasonably possible. The adjudicator was satisfied with the measures taken despite the technical limitations of recovering any permanently deleted emails.
Use of code words
The use of code words when referring to the Greenbelt project has had the unfortunate effect of frustrating freedom of information searches. See, for example, Orders PO-4634, PO-4611-I and PO-4644. Inconsistent use of code words such as “special project” or “SP – GB” or “GB” or “special project – GB” when referring to the Greenbelt project made it unduly difficult for the government to find responsive records using standard search methodology. Worse, the use of the codeword “G*” made it virtually impossible to find relevant records, given that the asterisk (“*”) is used as a technical wildcard when conducting text searches, returning any word starting with “G”. Trying to search with “G*” would have returned a massive number of records, rendering it wholly impossible to sort through.
Practically, that meant having to forego using the codeword “G*” as a search term, which may have missed some responsive records. Unfortunately, given the technical impossibility to search for records using this term, it remains impossible to know either way.
Use of personal email and devices
The Auditor General also observed that political staff used personal email accounts and devices as a conduit through which government-related messages were forwarded to or from government accounts. This practice had the effect of circumventing the record-keeping obligations of FIPPA and limiting access to key decision-making records. It also rendered such emails and text messages vulnerable to loss on personal devices, which did occur. The Auditor General noted the practice of using personal devices to conduct government-related business is contrary to Ontario Public Service (OPS) guidelines on information security and acceptable use of I&IT. It also ignores long-standing IPC guidance that strongly warns against the use of personal email or messages to conduct government business.
When dealing with access to information appeals, the IPC will typically not order a search through the personal devices of government or political staff for privacy reasons, given the personal nature of communications on these devices. However, where there was credible evidence to suggest that government-related emails or messages existed on personal devices of individual staff, as in several Greenbelt-related cases, the IPC ordered the institution to require those individuals to search for responsive records on their personal devices, including the Premier himself. (See orders PO-4577-F, PO-4638, PO-4639-I, and PO-4640-I)
Since the Auditor General’s Report, Cabinet Office now requires all Premier’s Office and ministers’ staff to annually attest to using only government systems and accounts for government business and ensure any government records inadvertently received on a personal email account are transferred into the government system for proper record retention.
Control over personal emails of former staff
Some institutions claimed they had no custody or control over government-related records in the personal email accounts of former staff, despite credible evidence that personal email accounts were used during the Greenbelt decision making process. For example, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs refused to assert control over such records on the grounds that it had limited legal recourse to do so once the employment relationship had terminated.
However, in Orders PO-4639-I, PO-4640-I, and PO-4652-I, the IPC found that institutions have legal responsibility over all government-related records arising from their recordkeeping and record management obligations under the ARA. Where there was reason to believe government records may exist in personal email accounts of former staff, the IPC ordered the institution to assert control over the records and to direct former staff to produce them. Any recovered records would then have to be transferred to, retained, and preserved on government-sanctioned information systems in accordance with OPS Guidelines and IPC Guidance on Personal Email Accounts and Instant Messaging.
Lack of proper documentation
It was surprising to find so few responsive records documenting any government decisions or actions, how and when they were made, and by whom. The near-total absence of decision-making documentation is particularly concerning, especially on a file as high profile and consequential as changes to the Greenbelt. Despite evidence of meetings and discussions involving Premier’s Office staff and ministry staff about the Greenbelt, there was very little documentation of what was said or decided in those conversations, aside from a few contemporaneous notes taken by ministry staff. These notes reflect what staff understood at the time to be directives from the Premier’s Office. Yet, as the Integrity Commissioner found, these directives likely came from the ministry’s chief of staff, not the Premier’s Office. Unfortunately, the lack of proper documentation only added to the murkiness of decision-making. (See Orders PO-4638, PO-4611-I, and PO-4644)
Regardless of who issued the directives, and whether they were verbal or written, the dearth of documentation of any discussions, decisions or actions runs counter to basic record-keeping requirements and undermines government transparency.
Lessons learned
The Greenbelt-related appeals offer a clear example and cautionary tale about the consequences of inadequate recordkeeping. When key government decisions are not properly documented, when code words are used, or when records are stored in fragmented ways across personal and official systems, transparency suffers, and with it, public trust.
There are several important lessons to be learned from the Greenbelt-related orders issued to date.
- The use of opaque codewords to refer to discussions and decisions about important government matters weakens transparency. These practices not only violate legal record-keeping obligations, they also erode public trust in the integrity of government decision-making. The public has a fundamental right to know how and why decisions are made, especially those that impact protected lands like the Greenbelt. When records are obfuscated and made difficult, if not impossible, to find through evasive code words, transparency is compromised, and oversight becomes illusory.
- The absence of records raises serious accountability concerns and undermines public trust. Whether digital, handwritten, or verbal, decisions of public importance must be documented. Without a full and accurate record of decision-making, when, by whom and on what basis, the public is left in the dark about government actions that affect their communities and the environment. When records are lost, destroyed, obfuscated, or never created in the first place, it raises more questions than answers.
- Institutions cannot avoid FIPPA obligations based on where a record is stored. When there is credible evidence that official records exist outside government systems, including in the personal email accounts of current or former staff, institutions are obligated to take proactive steps to assert control over them and retrieve, transfer, and preserve them on government information systems. This serves to protect government records from security vulnerability as well as to facilitate reasonable searches in response to FOI requests.
- The lack of a robust records management system demonstrates a poor level of commitment. The IPC’s findings in these appeals highlight the urgent need for stronger records management practices, regular staff training, clear policies prohibiting the use of personal email accounts and devices for conducting government business, and a clearly articulated, unwavering commitment to transparency and public accountability. Without a full and accurate record of decision-making, the public is left in the dark about government actions that affect their communities and the environment.
Recommendations for strengthening transparency and public trust
Through its guidance on Instant Messaging and Personal Email Accounts: Meeting Your Access and Privacy Obligations, the IPC has consistently emphasized the need for sound record-keeping practices and compliance with FIPPA and ARA to ensure transparency and public accountability. This guidance has been reinforced by numerous presentations delivered to government and political staff on access and privacy obligations, explaining the serious consequences of poor records management.
These concerns were already articulated in the IPC’s 2013 special report, Deleting Accountability, which exposed systemic failures in record-keeping and highlighted the risks of improper deletion and lack of retention of key government records. These lessons of more than a decade ago have come back full circle. To address the systemic issues raised in these appeals, the IPC reiterates the following recommendations to government:
Review and modernize recordkeeping and retention practices
Institutions must ensure that their retention policies and practices are regularly reviewed and updated, and that their implementation is supported by clear practice and procedure guides. Ministers’ offices and the Premier’s Office should prioritize documenting verbal directions, discussions, and decisions. Special attention should be given to preserving contemporaneous records of meetings and avoiding the use of evasive code words.
Prohibit the use of personal tools for official business
Institutions should adopt clear policies prohibiting the use of personal email accounts and personal devices for official business, emphasizing that records relating to institutional business — even if created or stored on personal devices or accounts — remain subject to FIPPA. Where their use may be unavoidable and staff have sent or received business-related communications using unauthorized tools or accounts, staff should immediately, or within a reasonable time, transfer records to their official or authorized email account or the institution’s computer or network. These policies should be clearly incorporated as binding terms of staff members’ contracts of employment.
Train early and often
Staff must be trained on their record-keeping obligations. This training should be delivered immediately following changes in staffing or a change in government and on an ongoing basis thereafter. Staff should be informed that all business-related communications are subject to disclosure and retention requirements, regardless of the tool, account or device used, and that they will have to provide a copy of all business-related communications upon request. Staff should also be reminded that when they are collecting records in response to an access to information request, they must search for and produce any relevant records from instant messaging and personal email accounts, even if they exist contrary to policy.
Monitor for compliance
Staff must be held accountable for complying with record keeping requirements throughout their employment, up to and including upon departure. Institutions should designate a senior official responsible for compliance. They should regularly monitor for compliance over time, by conducting annual reviews as well as occasional spot-checks or surveys of staff practices. Where non-compliance is found or suspected, institutions must take immediate action to preserve the records and prevent further loss of information.
"When records are lost, destroyed, obfuscated, or never created in the first place, it raises more questions than answers."
Codify a duty to document
To avoid many of the pitfalls associated with Greenbelt-related access to information appeals, the IPC recommends that FIPPA and its municipal counterpart, MFIPPA, should be amended to include an explicit duty to document communications, decisions and actions. These laws should also include an explicit requirement for institutions to define and implement appropriate retention measures.
These steps would go a long way toward strengthening public trust and ensuring that the right of access to government-held information is not undermined by weak practices, disregard of policies, or incorrect assumptions. A functioning access to information regime depends not only on strong laws but on a consistent commitment to follow them.
Postscript
In response to the serious concerns raised by the Auditor General and the Integrity Commissioner, Cabinet Office and relevant ministries have made several efforts to strengthen their record-keeping practices. This includes compiling and safeguarding all records previously submitted to the AG and IG during their respective investigations.
At a May 6, 2024, appearance before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the consideration of the AG’s Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt, the Secretary of the Cabinet outlined additional measures to improve transparency and information management, including:
- a joint memo with the Premier’s chief of staff reminding all OPS and political staff to preserve and manage all records in accordance with record-keeping requirements
- increased frequency of records management training for all political staff, reinforcing the requirement that all government business must be conducted on government networks and accounts and any public records or communication inadvertently received on a personal account or device must be forwarded to their government account
- annual record-keeping attestation for staff in the Premier’s and ministers’ offices
The Secretary emphasized that these steps, among others, were implemented within 90 days of the Auditor General’s report and are intended to reinforce compliance with Ontario’s access and record-keeping laws.
In 2024, the IPC conducted six information sessions organized by the Premier’s Office, highlighting the principles of access to information and the importance of strong record keeping and retention practices, reinforcing their responsibilities under FIPPA and the Archives and Recordkeeping Act.
With respect to IPC orders related to the Greenbelt, the government has complied or stated its intention to comply with several, including PO-4449-I, PO-4505-F, PO-4638, and PO-4611-I, with the exception of PO-4577-F, in respect of which the government is seeking judicial review.
These steps signal positive movement toward compliance, though ongoing oversight remains essential to ensure corrective measures are not only implemented but sustained.
"The near-total absence of decision-making documentation is particularly concerning, especially on a file as high profile and consequential as changes to the Greenbelt.”
Summaries of Greenbelt-related cases to date
In several cases, cooperative mediation between the parties led to additional records being disclosed or further searches conducted, successfully resolving the matter without requiring a formal order.
Three complex appeals involving over 76,000 pages of records related to the Greenbelt boundary were resolved based on the commitment of the parties to work with an IPC mediator. The appellant worked to clarify and narrow the issues and formulate questions and the ministry worked to provide a detailed and satisfactory response. The parties were able resolve these appeals without the need for formal adjudication, saving time and resources.