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.

As for the cases that did not successfully resolve at mediation or went straight to adjudication, the following is a summary of their outcomes in chronological order.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Interim Order PO-4449-I (October 13, 2023)
Final Order PO-4505-F (April 8, 2024)

Orders PO-4449-I and PO-4505-F relate to a request for a high volume of records respecting the Greenbelt land removals. Given that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing had failed to issue a final access decision on time, and the passage of several months since the deadline, the IPC issued an order requiring the ministry to preserve and recover records. This step was particularly important in light of the Auditor General’s observations that political staff had used personal emails to conduct government business and may have deleted records.

In response, the ministry submitted affidavit evidence outlining the steps it has taken to preserve relevant records. These included:

• creating a dedicated internal SharePoint site to store Greenbelt-related files
• collecting and maintaining records shared with the Auditor General and Integrity Commissioner
• extracting email data from Ontario.ca mailboxes of current and former staff
• attempting to recover records from personal accounts (with limited success)
• confirming record retention practices aligned with the Archives and Recordkeeping Act

The adjudicator was satisfied that measures were put in place to preserve Greenbelt-related records. At the same time, the adjudicator acknowledged the limits of recovering data permanently deleted data from Ontario.ca email accounts before these safeguards were implemented. As the ministry’s attempts to recover Greenbelt-related emails from former staff had not been successful, the adjudicator noted that there remained a risk that personal emails relating to the Greenbelt might have been lost.

While not ruling on whether all responsive records were adequately preserved, the adjudicator recommended improvements to recordkeeping and accountability. These include reinforcing training on retention obligations, emphasizing the importance of using official channels for government work, and designating a senior official responsible for compliance.

Final Order PO-4505-F reinforces the principle that preserving access to records is critical for government transparency, and that ministries must follow strict guidelines to maintain accountability and preserve public trust.

Cabinet Office

PO-4577-F (November 29, 2024)

The primary issue in this appeal was whether call logs from the Premier of Ontario’s personal cell phone should be considered government records subject to FIPPA. An individual submitted two access requests seeking a list of all incoming, outgoing, and missed calls from the Premier’s personal device between October 31 and November 6, 2022. Cabinet Office denied access, arguing that because the phone was privately owned and not assigned to a government account, the records were not in its custody or control and therefore did not fall under FIPPA.

The requester appealed, arguing that the Premier used his personal phone for government business and that records of those calls should be accessible under the law. During the inquiry, the IPC reviewed arguments from Cabinet Office, the Premier, and the appellant. The adjudicator ultimately rejected Cabinet Office’s position, finding that while some of the Premier’s calls may have been personal, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the Premier also used his personal cell phone to conduct government business. Since Cabinet Office would reasonably expect to obtain and provide records of government-related calls made on an official phone, the same access principles should apply when government-related calls are made or received using a personal device.

The IPC ordered Cabinet Office to obtain those government-related call log entries from the Premier. The adjudicator emphasized that personal and constituency-related calls remain outside Cabinet Office’s control, and that any privacy concerns could be addressed through appropriate redactions or exemptions under FIPPA.

The order reinforces the principle that public officials cannot bypass transparency requirements by using personal devices for government work. What matters is the content and purpose of the communication, not the device used. 

The government is seeking judicial review of this order.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Interim Order PO-4611-I (February 20, 2025)

An access request was submitted for records of directives from the Premier’s Office to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the removal of lands from the Greenbelt. The ministry responded that no responsive records existed aside from the Premier’s June 2022 mandate letter, which was withheld under the Cabinet confidentiality exemption. The requester appealed, arguing that reports and testimony suggested such directives had been issued.

The IPC found that there was a reasonable basis to believe responsive records existed and that the ministry had taken an overly narrow approach to interpreting the request. While the ministry’s search for email records was upheld as reasonable, the IPC determined that other types of records, such as meeting notes documenting verbal directives, had not been properly searched. Reports from the Auditor General and the Integrity Commissioner indicated that key Greenbelt decisions were communicated verbally through the minister’s chief of staff, who referenced the Premier’s Office in discussions with ministry staff. Notes taken by officials contained references to the Premier’s Office and the Premier, yet the ministry had not included these records in its search.

The IPC ordered the ministry to conduct a new search focusing on meeting notes and other contemporaneous records of verbal direction. This appeal highlights significant gaps in record-keeping practices related to the Greenbelt decision-making process, including the reliance on verbal instructions, the use of personal email accounts by political staff, and concerns about deleted or undocumented communications. 

Ministry of the Solicitor General

PO-4634 (April 1, 2025)

A journalist requested records from the Ministry of the Solicitor General related to the Ontario Provincial Police security detail for the Premier, specifically seeking the dates the Premier attended a specific restaurant. The request covered records created between February 1 and December 1, 2022, tied to any meetings the Premier held at that location. While the ministry located officers' notes as responsive records, it denied the appellant access to them under the personal privacy exemption. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision, clarifying they were only seeking access to the dates the Premier was at the restaurant, and argued that the public interest override might apply.

The IPC acknowledged that the Premier may have conducted government or business meetings at the restaurant but observed that releasing specific dates, without being able to recall or otherwise determine which ones related to government business, would reveal something of a personal nature about the Premier. The totality of dates without such distinction would show the frequency or regularity with which the Premier attends the restaurant and could reveal a pattern in the Premier’s personal choices and habits, and therefore qualifies as the Premier’s personal information. The IPC concluded that the disclosure of the dates the Premier attended the restaurant would be an unjustified invasion of the Premier’s personal privacy.

The IPC also found that the public interest in disclosure of the dates did not outweigh the privacy concerns. While the IPC recognized that the Premier is a public figure and the actions and decisions relating to the Premier’s public office are of public interest, the Premier was still entitled to privacy with respect to personal matters, including the dates on which he attends a local restaurant. In the result, the IPC upheld the ministry’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

The IPC has consistently distinguished between personal records and those created during government work. Records such as emails, call logs, or directives that relate to official business are subject to access under FIPPA. Personal matters, even involving a public figure, are not.

Cabinet Office

PO-4638 (April 10, 2025)

An individual requested all records in the Premier’s Office relating to the proposed removal of Greenbelt lands from January 2021 to October 2022. Cabinet Office initially located only one responsive record. The requester appealed, claiming additional records should exist and citing freedom of information responses from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Those responses referred to communications involving Premier’s Office staff, including references to “PO decision points,” and testimony by ministry staff suggesting that directions may have come from the Premier’s Office.

During the IPC’s inquiry, Cabinet Office conducted broader searches using refined search terms and reviewed over 9,000 potentially responsive records. Only six records were found to be relevant. The IPC found that Cabinet Office had conducted a reasonable search, relying on experienced staff and a broad interpretation of the request.

The adjudicator expressed concern about the surprisingly low number of responsive records found, given the significance and profile of the Greenbelt issue. The adjudicator observed that it is unusual, and concerning from a recordkeeping perspective, that so few records were identified given the importance of the Greenbelt matter which involved senior level decision-making across multiple ministries.

The IPC ordered Cabinet Office to conduct a further search after the appellant provided evidence that the original search failed to locate a government-related Teams meeting invitation received at the personal email address of a former senior Premier’s Office employee. The IPC directed Cabinet Office to ask the former employee to search their personal accounts for responsive records. The IPC also directed Cabinet Office to ask former staff who did not sign a 2024 attestation of compliance with recordkeeping requirements to search their personal accounts for responsive records.

While institutions are not typically required to search personal accounts, they may be required to do so when there is credible evidence that official records may exist outside government systems. This further emphasizes the importance of using only government-issued devices and accounts to conduct government business. When staff use personal accounts or devices, it undermines efforts to preserve the public record and the freedom of information process. Moreover, the small number of responsive records suggests an absence of record creation and preservation which is also problematic.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Interim Orders PO-4639-I and PO-4640-I (April 15, 2025)

These two appeals from the decisions of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing related to requests for access to the personal emails of the former minister’s Chief of Staff. 

The appellants made requests for access to emails in the former Chief of Staff’s personal email account relating to the Greenbelt. The ministry provided some records of personal emails that had been forwarded by the former Chief of Staff to their official government email account. However, the ministry maintained that any relevant personal emails on the former employee’s personal account, if they existed, were not under its control.

The adjudicator examined whether personal emails held by the former Chief of Staff to Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing are “under the control” of the ministry for access purposes under FIPPA.

In these interim orders, the adjudicator found that any personal emails relating to the Greenbelt amendment, if they exist, are under the ministry’s control, even if they are on a personal email account. This is because:

• any responsive emails, if they exist, relate directly to government business
• the ministry has duties under FIPPA and the Archives and Recordkeeping Act to retain and preserve public records and must take active steps to assert control over them
• given the nature of the public service employment relationship, it is reasonable to expect that a public servant’s duties to their employer extend beyond the termination of employment and include the requirement to produce any government records in their possession.

The adjudicator ordered the ministry to assert control over the records and direct the former Chief of Staff to provide any responsive emails from their personal account or swear an affidavit confirming no such records exist. The adjudicator noted that the ministry may have potential remedies under law to compel the return of any responsive records. The adjudicator also noted that the IPC has the authority to summon and examine, under oath, any individual who may have information relating to an inquiry.

This order again reinforces the principle that under FIPPA, institutions have custody or control of records about government business, regardless of whether those records are stored in a government account, in a personal account, or anywhere else.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

PO-4644 (April 23, 2025)

An access request was submitted for records of directives from the Premier’s Office to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the removal of lands from the Greenbelt. Cabinet Office initially advised that no responsive records existed, but during mediation, it located two: the Premier’s mandate letter and a draft mandate letter. The requester appealed, arguing that additional records should exist, and that Cabinet Office had not conducted a reasonable search.

The IPC found that Cabinet Office conducted a reasonable search and dismissed the appeal. The adjudicator accepted that Cabinet Office adopted a broad and appropriate interpretation of the term “directive,” applied multiple search terms (including code words like “special project” and “GB”), and searched the accounts of 29 current and former Premier’s Office staff. Cabinet Office also searched records provided to the Auditor General and asked staff to transfer any responsive records from personal accounts to official systems.

Although the appellant pointed to reports and testimony suggesting that the Premier’s Office gave direction to ministry officials, the IPC found no evidence that such direction, if it existed, was ever documented in writing or been deleted. Unlike the findings in Order PO-4638, discussed below, the IPC found no basis to require searches of personal accounts.

This order highlights how the use of verbal instructions, informal communication channels, and coded language can frustrate transparency and accountability. Even where there is evidence that government direction was given, the absence of documented records leaves little recourse under access to information laws. The decision reinforces the importance of consistent and accurate record-keeping, especially in matters of significant public interest.

Cabinet Office

PO-4652-I (May 5, 2025)

The appellant submitted a request for the calendar of the former senior official in the Premier’s Office for the period from June 1 to December 31, 2022. Cabinet Office located the responsive records and granted the appellant partial access to them.

The appellant appealed Cabinet Office’s decision, claiming that it did not conduct a reasonable search because it ought to have searched the individual’s personal calendar. In this interim order, the adjudicator found the individual’s personal calendar was not within the scope of the appellant’s request and upheld Cabinet Office’s decision not to search it. However, the adjudicator found Cabinet Office’s search of the individual’s government Outlook calendar was not reasonable because it did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that the entries marked “Private” in the individual’s official government calendar were, in fact, private or personal in nature. The adjudicator ordered Cabinet Office to obtain an affidavit from the individual confirming the nature of the calendar entries marked “Private” in their government Outlook calendar. In the case that any of the entries marked “Private” were found to relate to government business, the adjudicator orders Cabinet office to require the individual to search their personal calendar for any corresponding entries and provide any such records to Cabinet Office so it can render a revised access decision.