Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada

Commissaire à l’information et à la protection de la vie privée, Ontario, Canada

ORDER PO-3444

Appeal PA12-374

University of Ottawa

January 7, 2015

Summary: The appellant made a request to the university for records relating to him while he was a medical resident at an affiliated teaching hospital. The university granted partial access to the responsive records, denying information on the basis of the discretionary exemption in section 49(a) with reference to sections 13(1) (advice or recommendation) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege). The university also claimed that some records were excluded from the Act under section 65(6)3 (labour relations or employment records). Finally, the appellant raised the issue of the reasonableness of the university’s search and the possibility of additional responsive records. The adjudicator upholds the university’s decision to deny access under section 49(a). Furthermore, the university’s claim of the exclusion in section 65(6)3 on behalf of the hospital is upheld. Lastly, the adjudicator finds the university’s search to be reasonable.

Statutes Considered: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31 , as amended, ss. 2(1) (definition of personal information), 49(a), 19, 65(6)3.

Orders Considered: Order PO-3257.

OVERVIEW:

[1] The appellant made a request to the University of Ottawa (the university) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to information relating to his academic performance when he was a medical resident at the Ottawa Hospital (the hospital). Specifically, the request was as follows:

All copies of all correspondence memoranda associates (include emails) with respect to me generally and my academic performance at the University of Ottawa from [specified date] to date. I expect that the majority of my materials will be found in the offices of Legal Counsel, the Dean of Faculty of Medicine, the Associate Dean PGME [named doctor], the division of Cardiac Surgery the Program Director of Cardiac Surgery [named doctor], the Human Resources, the President, the VIP Governance, and other offices.

[2] The university located a number of responsive records and provided the appellant with a decision granting partial access to them and denying information pursuant to the discretionary exemption in section 49(a) in conjunction with sections 13(1) (advice or recommendation) and 19 (solicitor-client privilege) and the mandatory personal privacy exemption in section 21(1). The university also indicated that it did not conduct a search in the office of the Program Director of Cardiac Surgery as it does not have custody and control of those records.

[3] During mediation, the following occurred:

• • The appellant confirmed that he is not appealing access to information withheld under section 49(b) in conjunction with section 21(1) and any information identified as not responsive.
• • The university identified one record and denied access to it on the basis that it was excluded under section 65(6) (labour relations and employment-related records).¹
• • The appellant advised that he believes additional responsive records should exist and thus the reasonableness of the university’s search was added to the scope of the appeal.

[4] During my inquiry, I sought representations from the university and the appellant. I received representations from the university only. The university, upon receipt and review of Order PO-3257, determined that it would conduct a search for records in the office of the Program Director of Cardiac Surgery. The university provided a decision to the appellant with respect to the records located. As the university has conducted a search in the record holdings of the Program Director of Cardiac Surgery, I have removed the custody and control issue from the scope of the appeal. Furthermore, the university withdrew its reliance on section 13(1) of the Act  instead relying on section 49(a) in conjunction with section 19 for this information.

[5] In this order, I uphold the university’s decision.

RECORDS:

[6] The records at issue are set out in the appendix to this order. The records predominantly consist of emails with attached documents.

ISSUES:

1. A. Does section 65(6) exclude some of the records from the Act ?
2. B. Do the records contain personal information as defined in section 2(1) and, if so, to whom does it relate?
3. C. Does the discretionary exemption at section 49(a) in conjunction with the section 19 exemption apply to the records at issue?
4. D. Was the university’s exercise of discretion proper?
5. E. Did the university conduct a reasonable search for records?

DISCUSSION:

A. Does section 65(6) exclude some of the record from the Act?

[7] The university has claimed that four records are excluded from the Act  pursuant to section 65(6)3 of the Act  which states:

Subject to subsection (7), this Act  does not apply to records collected, prepared, maintained or used by or on behalf of an institution in relation to any of the following:

Meetings, consultations, discussions or communications about labour relations or employment related matters in which the institution has an interest.

[8] If section 65(6) applies to the records, and none of the exceptions found in section 65(7) applies, the records are excluded from the scope of the Act .

[9] For the collection, preparation, maintenance or use of a record to be in relation to the subjects mentioned in paragraph 1, 2 or 3 of this section, it must be reasonable to conclude that there is some connection between them.²

[10] The term labour relations refers to the collective bargaining relationship between an institution and its employees, as governed by collective bargaining legislation, or to analogous relationships. The meaning of labour relations is not restricted to employer-employee relationships.³

[11] The term employment of a person refers to the relationship between an employer and an employee. The term employment-related matters refers to human resources or staff relations issues arising from the relationship between an employer and employees that do not arise out of a collective bargaining relationship.⁴

[12] If section 65(6) applied at the time the record was collected, prepared, maintained or used, it does not cease to apply at a later date.⁵

[13] Section 65(6) may apply where the institution that received the request is not the same institution that originally collected, prepared, maintained or used the records, even where the original institution is an institution under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.⁶

[14] For section 65(6)3 to apply, the institution must establish that:

1. 1. the records were collected, prepared, maintained or used by an institution or on its behalf;
2. 2. this collection, preparation, maintenance or usage was in relation to meetings, consultations, discussions or communications; and
3. 3. these meetings, consultations, discussions or communications are about labour relations or employment-related matters in which the institution has an interest.

[15] The university submits that Records 119 – 122 are excluded from the Act  pursuant to section 65(6)3 as they relate to the appellant’s grievance filed under the Professional Association of Interns and Residents of Ontario (formerly PAIRO now PARO) and the Council of Academic Hospitals of Ontario (CAHO) collective agreement.

[16] Based on my review of these records, I find that parts 1 and 2 of the test are established as it is evident the university prepared and used the records for the purpose of discussions and communications relating to the appellant’s grievance. The records consist of emailed communications between university staff and hospital and university lawyers relating to the appellant’s grievance.

Part 3: labour relations or employment-related matters in which the institution has an interest

[17] The phrase in which the institution has an interest means more than a mere curiosity or concern, and refers to matters involving the institution’s own workforce.⁷

[18] The records collected, prepared, maintained or used by the institution are excluded only if the meetings, consultations, discussions or communications are about labour relations or employment-related matters in which the institution has an interest. Employment-related matters are separate and distinct from matters related to employees’ actions.⁸

[19] The university submits that as a medical resident of its Faculty of Medicine Cardiac Surgery Program, the appellant has a dual status. The university states:

All medical residents have [a] dual status in that they are at the same time (1) trainees registered in an approved program at a university for eventual accreditation as specialists and (2) employees of the teaching hospitals where they undertake their clinical training. The employment conditions of a medical resident at the hospital are governed by a collective agreement between teaching hospitals [CAHO] and a union representing medical residents [PARO].

[20] The university submits that it is an institution having an interest given the dual status of medical residents as both trainees and physicians employed by the hospital. This dual status is set out in the PARO – CAHO Collective Agreement. The university submits that the records relate to the appellant’s grievance filed under the agreement and as such are labour relations matters in which it has an interest.

[21] As stated above, the phrase in which the institution has an interest has been interpreted to refer to matters involving an institution’s own workforce. In Order PO-3257, I considered an appeal from a similar request for access to records of the appellant also to the university. In that decision, I found that based on the material before me, it was not apparent that there was an employment or labour relations relationship between the appellant and the university. However, I went on to find that an employment relationship did exist between the hospital and the appellant for the purposes of section 65(6). Accordingly, I found that the university could claim the exclusion on behalf of the hospital where I found that the hospital has an interest in the records. At paragraph 27 of that decision I state:

The materials before me, including the parties’ submissions, establish that medial residents are employed by the teaching hospitals and this employment relationship is subject to the collective agreement between PARO and the hospitals. The appellant is an employee of the hospital for the purposes of section 65(6)3 and the grievance between the hospital and the appellant is a matter involving the hospital’s own workforce. In the circumstances of this appeal, I find that the appellant’s grievance is a labour-relations matter in which the hospital has an interest.

[22] I find that my rationale in Order PO-3257 is relevant in this appeal. The records before me relate to discussions between university staff, the university lawyer and the hospital lawyer about the appellant’s grievance. I find that the appellant’s grievance is a labour relations matter in which the hospital has an interest. As I have found that Records 119 – 122 were prepared and used by the university and hospital in relation to communications and discussions about a labour relations matter in which the hospital has an interest, I find that the exclusion applies to them. Accordingly, I find that the university is able to claim the exclusion on behalf of the hospital, and the records listed above are excluded from the application of the Act under section 65(6)3.

B. Do the records contain personal information as defined in section 2(1) and, if so, to whom does it relate?

[23] In order to determine which sections of the Act  may apply, it is necessary to decide whether the record contains personal information and, if so, to whom it relates. That term is defined in section 2(1) as follows:

personal information means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including,

(a) information relating to the race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation or marital or family status of the individual,

(b) information relating to the education or the medical, psychiatric, psychological, criminal or employment history of the individual or information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved,

(c) any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual,

(d) the address, telephone number, fingerprints or blood type of the individual,

(e) the personal opinions or views of the individual except if they relate to another individual,

(f) correspondence sent to an institution by the individual that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or confidential nature, and replies to that correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence,

(g) the views or opinions of another individual about the individual, and

(h) the individual’s name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual.

[24] The list of examples of personal information under section 2(1) is not exhaustive. Therefore, information that does not fall under paragraphs (a) to (h) may still qualify as personal information.⁹

[25] Sections 2(3) and (4) also relate to the definition of personal information. These sections state:

(3) Personal information does not include the name, title, contact information or designation of an individual that identifies the individual in a business, professional or official capacity.

(4) For greater certainty, subsection (3) applies even if an individual carries out business, professional or official responsibilities from their dwelling and the contact information for the individual relates to that dwelling.

[26] To qualify as personal information, the information must be about the individual in a personal capacity. As a general rule, information associated with an individual in a professional, official or business capacity will not be considered to be about the individual.¹⁰

[27] Even if information relates to an individual in a professional, official or business capacity, it may still qualify as personal information if the information reveals something of a personal nature about the individual.¹¹

[28] To qualify as personal information, it must be reasonable to expect that an individual may be identified if the information is disclosed.¹²

[29] The university submits that the records relate to the appellant’s education, academic performance, employment matters with the hospital and various legal matters. The university submits this is all the personal information of the appellant within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Act .

[30] I further find that the records contain the personal opinions and views of the appellant by various hospital and university staff. I find this information also qualifies as the appellant’s personal information for the purposes of section 2(1).

[31] I further find that the records contain recorded information about other individuals, specifically staff members at the university and hospital, including doctors holding academic appointments with the university. As stated above, to qualify as personal information, the information must be about the individual in a personal capacity and not about them in their professional or official capacity. In regard to the information about the university and hospital staff members and doctors holding academic appointments, I find that the information in the records relates to them in their personal capacity including other work commitments and holiday plans and schedules. I find this to be their personal information for the purposes of section 2(1). I also find that the recorded information about these individuals includes the following types of information:

• • Information relating to address and telephone number (paragraph (d) of the definition of personal information);
• • The personal opinions or views of the individuals (paragraph (e) of the definition of personal information);
• • The individual’s name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual (paragraph (h) of the definition of personal information).

[32] Accordingly, I have found that the records contain the personal information of the appellant and other identifiable individuals. While the university has disclosed most of the appellant’s own information to him, the remaining personal information at issue is the subject of the records for which the university has claimed the application of section 49(a) in conjunction with section 19.

C. Does the discretionary exemption at section 49(a) in conjunction with the section 19 exemption apply to the records at issue?

[33] Section 47(1) gives individuals a general right of access to their own personal information held by an institution. Section 49(a) provides an exemption from this right and states:

A head may refuse to disclose to the individual to whom the information relates personal information,

where section 12, 13, 14, 14.1, 14.2, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 or 22 would apply to the disclosure of that personal information. [Emphasis by me].

[34] Section 49(a) of the Act  recognizes the special nature of requests for one’s own personal information and the desire of the legislature to give institutions the power to grant requesters access to their personal information.¹³ Where access is denied under section 49(a), the institution must demonstrate that, in exercising its discretion, it considered whether a record should be released to the requester because the record contains his or her personal information.

[35] In this case, the university relies on section 49(a) in conjunction with section 19 which states:

A head may refuse to disclose a record,

(a) that is subject to solicitor-client privilege;

(b) that was prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice or in contemplation of or for use in litigation; or

(c) that was prepared by or for counsel employed or retained by an educational institution or a hospital for use in giving legal advice or in contemplation of or for use in litigation.

[36] Section 19 contains two branches. Branch 1 (subject to solicitor-client privilege) is based on the common law. Branch 2 (prepared by or for Crown counsel or counsel employed or retained by an educational institution or hospital) is a statutory privilege. The institution must establish that one or the other (or both) branches apply.

[37] The university submits that both Branch 1 and 2 of section 19 applies to the information withheld and identifies the internal and external lawyers named in the records.

[38] At common law, solicitor-client privilege encompasses two types of privilege: (i) solicitor-client communication privilege; and (ii) litigation privilege. The university submits that the Branch 1 aspect of section 19 applies to the direct communications between external counsel retained by the university and university staff for the purposes of obtaining or giving legal advice. The university further submits that the privilege also protects the continuum of communications between solicitor and client.

[39] The university submits that the records generally relate to advice being sought from and given by counsel in relation to the various stages of the appellant’s academic appeal of his status in the medical residency program and other litigation involving the appellant. The university categorized the records as follows:

• • emails and other communications between counsel for the university, university employees and physicians who hold an academic appointment granted by the university and their administrative staff, with regard to which legal advice is sought from counsel for the university;
• • drafts and other related records drafted by counsel for the university;
• • emails or other communications including drafts prepared by university employees and/or physicians who hold an academic appointment granted by the university and their administrative staff, with regard to which legal advice is sought from counsel for the university;
• • emails or other communications that form part of the continuum of communications and that were exchanged for the purpose of keeping counsel for the university, university employees and physicians who hold an academic appointment granted by the university and their administrative staff informed so that the legal advice may be sought or given as required.

[40] The university also submits that the litigation privilege applies to all records where section 19 has been claimed given that the appellant had retained his own legal counsel during his academic appeal of his status in the medical residency program. The university submits that when its counsel appears in the records, the dominant purpose of litigation was reasonably contemplated for the following reasons:

• • A final decision on an academic appeal can lead to the filing of an application with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for a judicial review of the university’s final decision. The appellant had hired his own legal counsel at early stages of the academic appeal process, and had, at the time of the inquiry, appealed at every stage of the process.
• • In 2009, the appellant filed a labour grievance against the teaching hospital under the PAIRO – CAHO collective agreement. While the university is not a party to the agreement or the appellant’s grievance, the grievance had legal implications for the university and the program given the appellant’s dual status. The appellant’s grievance, if not resolved, would lead to an arbitration proceeding, and therefore litigation was reasonably contemplated.

[41] The university notes that actual litigation occurred when, in October 2010, the appellant filed a human rights application against the university and others. Furthermore, in November 2011, the appellant was among the group of plaintiffs that filed a Statement of Claim against the university, its academic staff and physicians holding academic appointments with the university.

[42] The university submits that the records represent an exchange of confidential information between counsel for the university and university staff for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. Lastly, it notes that it did not take any action that would constitute waiver of either its Branch 1 or 2 solicitor-client privilege either implicitly or explicitly. The university submits that the records have not been disclosed to outsiders by either counsel for the university or the recipients of the legal advice.

[43] Based on my review of the records for which section 19 has been claimed, I find that the exemption applies. The records for which the university has claimed section 19 predominantly consist of email chains between staff in the medical program, hospital and then university counsel and/or outside counsel retained by the university. These emails relate to the appellant’s status as a resident at the hospital and student in the medical program and the various proceedings that arose during his residency. I find the email exchanges were confidential communications between a client (the university) and its solicitor, for the purpose or providing legal advice and, as such, qualify as Branch 1 and 2 solicitor-client privilege. I further find that the university has not waived this privilege.

[44] I also find that some of the records were created for the dominant purpose of actual and reasonably contemplated litigation including the appellant’s appeal of hospital’s decision regarding his residency, his grievance under the PARO-CAHO agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal proceeding. I find that these records are exempt as litigation privileged under branch 1 of section 19.

[45] Accordingly, as I have found that section 19 applies, I uphold the university’s decision to withhold the records pursuant to section 49(a), subject to my finding on its exercise of discretion.

D. Was the university’s exercise of discretion proper in the circumstances?

[46] The section 49(a) exemption is discretionary and the institution is permitted to disclose the information, despite the fact that it could withhold it. An institution must exercise its discretion and on appeal, I may determine whether the institution failed to do so.

[47] In addition, I may find that the institution erred in exercising its discretion where, for example:

• • it does so in bad faith or for an improper purpose
• • it takes into account irrelevant considerations
• • it fails to take into account relevant considerations.

[48] In either case this office may send the matter back to the institution for an exercise of discretion based on proper considerations.¹⁴ This office may not, however, substitute its own discretion for that of the institution.¹⁵

[49] The university submits that it considered the following in exercising its discretion:

• • the purpose of the Act ;
• • whether the appellant was seeking his own personal information;
• • whether the requester had a sympathetic or compelling need to receive the information;
• • whether disclosure of the information would increase public confidence in the operation of the university.

[50] The university submits that the records at issue consist of either confidential communications between a solicitor and client for the purpose of providing legal advice or the receipt of confidential information by a solicitor in order for the solicitor to provide advice on an ongoing legal matter. Furthermore, the university notes that these records also include the personal information of other individuals that relate to the appellant and were provided on a confidential basis.

[51] The university surmises that there was no sympathetic or compelling need for the appellant to receive the information and this fact was balanced against the confidential legal communications and personal information. The university states:

Historically, the university has never disclosed solicitor-client communications as such communications are regarded as privileged, thereby increasing public confidence in the operation of the University of Ottawa.

Hence, in an attempt to protect the integrity of the university’s legal services and the privacy of individuals, the university sought to exercise its discretion and not disclose the relevant records.

[52] In the circumstances, I find that the university properly considered the relevant factors and did not take into consideration any irrelevant factors. I uphold the university’s exercise of discretion to withhold the records at issue under section 49(a).

E. Did the university conduct a reasonable search for records?

[53] Where a requester claims that additional records exist beyond those identified by the institution, the issue to be decided is whether the institution has conducted a reasonable search for records as required by section 24.¹⁶ If I am satisfied that the search carried out was reasonable in the circumstances, I will uphold the institution’s decision. If I am not satisfied, I may order further searches.

[54] The Act  does not require the institution to prove with absolute certainty that further records do not exist. However, the institution must provide sufficient evidence to show that it has made a reasonable effort to identify and locate responsive records.¹⁷ To be responsive, a record must be reasonably related to the request.¹⁸

[55] A reasonable search is one in which an experienced employee knowledgeable in the subject matter of the request expends a reasonable effort to locate records which are reasonably related to the request.¹⁹

[56] A further search will be ordered if the institution does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has made a reasonable effort to identify and locate all of the responsive records within its custody or control.²⁰

[57] Although a requester will rarely be in a position to indicate precisely which records the institution has not identified, the requester still must provide a reasonable basis for concluding that such records exist.²¹

[58] The university submits that it conducted a reasonable search for the records and provided a written summary of the steps taken to respond to the appellant’s request. The university notes that it did not contact the appellant as his request was clear and provided sufficient detail in order for them to conduct the search for responsive records.

[59] The university submits that a search was conducted by the following individuals:

• • Dean of the Faculty of Medicine
• • Executive Legal Assistant of Legal Services
• • Director, Human Resources
• • Special Assistant, Office of the President
• • Manager, Postgraduate Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine
• • Academic and Accreditation Administration, Manager, Postgraduate Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine

[60] The university also provided an affidavit of the Administrative Officer of the Access to Information and Privacy Office who affirmed that she received the search forms from the individuals set out above. The search forms were attached as exhibits to the affidavit and detail the search terms used, the record-holdings that were searched, and the results of the searches.

[61] I find that the university’s search for the responsive records was reasonable. The appellant did not provide representations and I am unable to discern the basis for his belief that additional responsive records should exist. The university has established that it conducted searches in the offices of those individuals who were the subject of the appellant’s request for information relating to him. I find the university’s search to be reasonable and I dismiss this portion of the appeal.

ORDER:

I uphold the university’s decision and dismiss the appeal.

Original signed by: Stephanie Haly Adjudicator

January 7, 2015

APPENDIX

INDEX OF RECORDS²²

Record Number	Date and Description	Section Applied
2	Dec. 9/10 – email	49(a), 19
3	Dec. 10/10 – email	49(a), 19
18	Dec. 14/10 – email	49(a), 19
19	Dec. 14/10 – email	49(a), 19
20	Dec. 14/10 – email	49(a), 19
21	Dec. 14/10 – email	49(a), 19
22	Dec. 14/10 – email	49(a), 19
23	Dec. 15/10 – email	49(a), 19
24	Dec. 15/10 – email	49(a), 19
25	Dec. 15/10 – email	49(a), 19
26	Dec. 15/10 - email	49(a), 19
27	Dec. 15/10 – email	49(a), 19
28	Dec. 15/10 – email	49(a), 19
29	Dec. 15/10 – email	49(a), 19
31	Dec. 16/10 - email	49(a), 19
32	Dec. 16/10 - email	49(a), 19
33	Dec. 16/10 - email	49(a), 19
34	Dec. 16/10 - email	49(a), 19
35	Dec. 16/10 - email	49(a), 19
36	Dec. 16/10 - email	49(a), 19
37	Dec. 16/10 - email	49(a), 19
38	Dec. 17/10 – email	49(a), 19
42	Dec. 17/10 – email	49(a), 19
43	Dec. 17/10 – email	49(a), 19
44	Dec. 17/10 – email	49(a), 19
45	Dec. 17/10 – email	49(a), 19
46	Dec. 17/10 – email	49(a), 19
47	Dec. 17/10 – email	49(a), 19
48	Dec. 19/10 – email	49(a), 19
51	Dec. 20/10 - email	49(a), 19
52	Dec. 20/10 - email	49(a), 19
53	Dec. 20/10 - email	49(a), 19
55	Dec. 20/10 - email	49(a), 19
57	Dec. 20/10 – email	49(a), 19
59	Dec. 20/10 - email	49(a), 19
60	Dec. 20/10 - email	49(a), 19
62	Dec. 21/10 – email and draft letter	49(a), 19
63	Dec. 22/10 - email	49(a), 19
64	Dec. 22/10 - email	49(a), 19
65	Dec. 22/10 – email and draft letter	49(a), 19
66	Dec. 22/10 – email and draft letter	49(a), 19
67	Dec. 22/10 – email and draft letter	49(a), 19
68	Dec. 22/10 - email	49(a), 19
69	Dec. 22/10 - email	49(a), 19
71	Dec. 22/10 - email	49(a), 19
76	Dec. 22/10 - email	49(a), 19
77	Dec. 22/10 - email	49(a), 19
80	Dec. 22/10 - email	49(a), 19
82	Dec. 23/10 – email	49(a), 19
89	Dec. 28/10 – email	49(a), 19
93	Jan. 5/11 – email	49(a), 19
94	Jan. 5/11 – email	49(a), 19
97	Jan. 06/11 - email	49(a), 19
103	Jan. 07/11 - email	49(a), 19
105	Jan. 07/11 - email	49(a), 19
106	Jan. 07/11 - email	49(a), 19
108	Jan. 08/11 - email	49(a), 19
109	Jan. 08/11 - email	49(a), 19
111	Jan. 10/11 - email	49(a), 19
112	Jan. 10/11 – email and letter	49(a), 19
113	Jan. 10/11 – email and letter	49(a), 19
114	Jan. 11/11 – email	49(a), 19
115	Jan. 11/11 – email	49(a), 19
116	Jan. 11/11 – email and minutes	49(a), 19
117	Jan. 11/11 – email	49(a), 19
119	Jan. 12/11 - email	65(6)
120	Jan. 12/11 - email	65(6)
121	Jan. 12/11 - email	65(6)
122	Jan. 12/11 - email	65(6)
123	Jan. 12/11 - email	49(a), 19
127	Jan. 12/11 – email and letter	49(a), 19
128	Jan. 15/11 – email	49(a), 19
130	Jan. 15/11 – email	49(a), 19
131	Jan. 15/11 – email	49(a), 19
132	Jan. 15/11 – email	49(a), 19
133	Jan. 16/11 – email	49(a), 19
134	Jan. 16/11 – email	49(a), 19
138	Jan. 25/11 – email	49(a), 19
142	Jan. 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
143	Jan. 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
144	Jan. 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
145	Jan. 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
146	Jan. 26/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
150	Feb. 3/11 - email	49(a), 19
151	Feb. 3/11 - email	49(a), 19
154	Feb. 4/11 - email	49(a), 19
155	Feb. 4/11 - email	49(a), 19
156	Feb. 4/11 - email	49(a), 19
157	Feb. 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
158	Feb. 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
159	Feb. 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
160	Feb. 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
161	Feb. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
162	Feb. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
165	Feb. 11/11 – email	49(a), 19
166	Feb. 13/11 – email	49(a), 19
167	Feb. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
168	Feb. 14/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
169	Feb. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
170	Feb. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
172	Feb. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
173	Feb. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
174	Feb. 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
175	Feb. 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
176	Feb. 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
177	Feb. 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
178	Feb. 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
180	Feb. 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
182	Feb. 16/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
183	Feb. 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
186	Feb. 22/11 – email	49(a), 19
188	Feb. 22/11 – email	49(a), 19
189	Feb. 22/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
190	Feb. 22/11 – email	49(a), 19
191	Feb. 23/11 – email	49(a), 19
192	Feb. 23/11 – email	49(a), 19
193	Feb. 23/11 – email	49(a), 19
194	Feb. 24/11 - email	49(a), 19
195	Feb. 24/11 - email	49(a), 19
199	Feb. 28/11 - email	49(a), 19
200	Feb. 28/11 - email	49(a), 19
201	Feb. 28/11 - email	49(a), 19
211	Mar. 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
212	Mar. 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
215	Mar. 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
226	Mar. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
227	Mar. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
228	Mar. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
232	Mar. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
242	Mar. 11/11 - email	49(a), 19
245	Mar. 11/11 - email	49(a), 19
246	Mar. 11/11 - email	49(a), 19
248	Mar. 11/11 - email	49(a), 19
249	Mar. 11/11 - email	49(a), 19
250	Mar. 12/11 – email	49(a), 19
251	Mar. 12/11 – email	49(a), 19
252	Mar. 12/11 – email	49(a), 19
253	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
254	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
255	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
256	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
257	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
258	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
259	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
260	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
263	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
264	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
265	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
266	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
267	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
268	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
269	Mar. 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
270	Mar. 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
271	Mar. 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
272	Mar. 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
273	Mar. 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
274	Mar. 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
278	Mar. 21/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
279	Mar. 21/11 - email	49(a), 19
280	Mar. 21/11 - email	49(a), 19
281	Mar. 21/11 - email	49(a), 19
282	Mar. 21/11 - email	49(a), 19
283	Mar. 21/11 - email	49(a), 19
286	Mar. 22/11 - email	49(a), 19
287	Mar. 22/11 - email	49(a), 19
288	Mar. 22/11 - email	49(a), 19
289	Mar. 24/11 - email	49(a), 19
290	Mar. 24/11 - email	49(a), 19
291	Mar. 24/11 - email	49(a), 19
299	Mar. 29/11 – email	49(a), 19
301	Mar. 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
302	Mar. 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
303	Mar. 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
304	Mar. 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
305	Mar. 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
306	Mar. 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
307	Mar. 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
308	Mar. 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
310	Mar. 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
311	Mar. 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
312	Mar. 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
313	Mar. 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
314	Apr. 1/11 – email	49(a), 19
315	Apr. 1/11 – email	49(a), 19
316	Apr. 1/11 – email	49(a), 19
318	Apr. 1/11 – email	49(a), 19
319	Apr. 1/11 – email	49(a), 19
320	Apr. 2/11 - email	49(a), 19
321	Apr. 2/11 - email	49(a), 19
322	Apr. 2/11 - email	49(a), 19
323	Apr. 3/11 - email	49(a), 19
324	Apr. 4/11 - email	49(a), 19
325	Apr. 4/11 - email	49(a), 19
326	Apr. 5/11 - email	49(a), 19
327	Apr. 5/11 - email	49(a), 19
328	Apr. 5/11 - email	49(a), 19
329	Apr. 5/11 - email	49(a), 19
332	Apr. 6/11 – email	49(a), 19
333	Apr. 7/11 – email	49(a), 19
334	Apr. 11/11 – email	49(a), 19
335	Apr. 12/11 – email	49(a), 19
337	Apr. 13/11 – email	49(a), 19
338	Apr. 15/11 – email	49(a), 19
340	Apr. 20/11 – email	49(a), 19
341	Apr. 20/11 – email	49(a), 19
342	Apr. 21/11 – email	49(a), 19
343	Apr. 29/11 - email	49(a), 19
344	Apr. 29/11 – email	49(a), 19
345	Apr. 29/11 – email	49(a), 19
346	May 2/11 - email	49(a), 19
347	May 2/11 - email	49(a), 19
348	May 2/11 - email	49(a), 19
349	May 3/11 - email	49(a), 19
350	May 3/11 - email	49(a), 19
351	May 3/11 - email	49(a), 19
352	May 4/11 - email	49(a), 19
353	May 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
354	May 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
355	May 9/11 – email	49(a), 19
356	May 11/11 – email	49(a), 19
358	May 13/11 – email	49(a), 19
361	May 17/11 – email	49(a), 19
362	May 17/11 – email	49(a), 19
373	May 24/11 – email	49(a), 19
374	May 24/11 – email	49(a), 19
375	May 24/11 – email	49(a), 19
376	May 24/11 – email	49(a), 19
377	May 24/11 – email	49(a), 19
378	May 24/11 – email	49(a), 19
379	May 24/11 – email	49(a), 19
380	May 24/11 – email	49(a), 19
384	May 25/11 - email	49(a), 19
387	May 25/11 - email	49(a), 19
388	May 25/11 - email	49(a), 19
389	May 25/11 - email	49(a), 19
390	May 25/11 - email	49(a), 19
391	May 25/11 - email	49(a), 19
392	May 25/11 - email	49(a), 19
393	May 25/11 - email	49(a), 19
394	May 25/11 - email	49(a), 19
397	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
399	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
400	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
401	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
402	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
403	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
404	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
405	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
406	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
407	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
408	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
409	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
410	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
411	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
415	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
421	May 26/11 - email	49(a), 19
426	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
427	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
428	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
429	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
430	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
431	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
432	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
434	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
435	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
437	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
438	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
439	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
440	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
441	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
442	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
443	May 27/11 - email	49(a), 19
444	May 30/11 - email	49(a), 19
445	May 30/11 - email	49(a), 19
447	May 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
448	May 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
449	May 31/11 - email	49(a), 19
452	June 4/11 - email	49(a), 19
453	June 4/11 - email	49(a), 19
454	June 4/11 - email	49(a), 19
455	June 6/11 - email	49(a), 19
456	June 6/11 - email	49(a), 19
463	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
464	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
465	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
466	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
468	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
473	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
474	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
475	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
476	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
477	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
478	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
479	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
480	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
481	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
482	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
483	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
484	June 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
485	June 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
486	June 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
487	June 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
488	June 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
489	June 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
491	June 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
492	June 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
493	June 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
495	June 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
496	June 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
499	June 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
500	June 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
501	June 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
502	June 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
504	June 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
506	June 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
507	June 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
521	June 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
522	June 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
523	June 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
524	June 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
528	June 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
529	June 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
533	June 10/11 - email	49(a), 19
534	June 10/11 - email	49(a), 19
535	June 10/11 - email	49(a), 19
536	June 10/11 - email	49(a), 19
542	June 10/11 - email	49(a), 19
543	June 10/11 - email	49(a), 19
544	June 10/11 - email	49(a), 19
547	June 13/11 - email	49(a), 19
552	June 13/11 – email	49(a), 19
557	June 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
558	June 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
559	June 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
560	June 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
561	June 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
562	June 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
563	June 14/11 - email	49(a), 19
564	June 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
565	June 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
566	June 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
568	June 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
569	June 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
570	June 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
571	June 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
572	June 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
573	June 15/11 - email	49(a), 19
576	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
577	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
578	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
579	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
580	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
581	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
584	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
585	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
586	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
587	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
588	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
589	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
590	June 16/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
591	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
592	June 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
597	June 17/11 - email	49(a), 19
600	June 17/11 - email	49(a), 19
601	June 20/11 - email	49(a), 19
602	June 20/11 - email	49(a), 19
603	June 20/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
604	June 20/11 - email	49(a), 19
606	June 20/11 - email	49(a), 19
607	June 20/11 - email	49(a), 19
608	June 20/11 - email	49(a), 19
609	June 21/11 - email	49(a), 19
610	June 21/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
611	June 22/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
612	June 22/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
614	June 23/11 – email	49(a), 19
615	June 23/11 – email	49(a), 19
616	June 24/11 - email	49(a), 19
617	June 24/11 - email	49(a), 19
619	June 24/11 - email	49(a), 19
620	June 24/11 - email	49(a), 19
621	June 24/11 - email	49(a), 19
622	June 24/11 - email	49(a), 19
623	June 24/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
624	June 25/11 - email	49(a), 19
625	June 25/11 - email	49(a), 19
627	June 28/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
628	June 28/11 - email	49(a), 19
629	June 28/11 - email	49(a), 19
631	June 29/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
632	June 29/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
633	June 29/11 - email	49(a), 19
634	June 29/11 - email	49(a), 19
635	June 30/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
636	June 30/11 - email	49(a), 19
637	June 30/11 - email	49(a), 19
638	June 30/11 - email	49(a), 19
639	June 30/11 - email	49(a), 19
641	June 30/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
642	July 1/11 - email	49(a), 19
643	July 1/11 - email	49(a), 19
645	July 4/11 - email	49(a), 19
647	July 4/11 - email	49(a), 19
648	July 4/11 - email	49(a), 19
649	July 4/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
650	July 4/11 - email	49(a), 19
655	July 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
656	July 12/11 - email	49(a), 19
657	July 12/11 - email	49(a), 19
658	July 12/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
659	July 12/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
660	July 12/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
661	July 12/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
662	July 12/11 - email	49(a), 19
663	July 12/11 - email	49(a), 19
664	July 12/11 - email	49(a), 19
665	July 12/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
669	July 15/11 – email	49(a), 19
670	July 15/11 – email	49(a), 19
674	July 19/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
676	July 19/11 – email	49(a), 19
677	July 19/11 - email	49(a), 19
679	July 19/11 - email	49(a), 19
681	July 19/11 - email	49(a), 19
682	July 19/11 - email	49(a), 19
683	July 20/11 - email	49(a), 19
684	July 20/11 - email	49(a), 19
693	July 21/11 – email	49(a), 19
694	July 21/11 – email	49(a), 19
697	July 22/11 – email	49(a), 19
698	July 22/11 - email	49(a), 19
705	July 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
706	July 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
707	July 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
715	July 28/11 – email	49(a), 19
717	July 29/11 – email	49(a), 19
718	July 29/11 – email	49(a), 19
721	Aug. 2/11 – email	49(a), 19
723	Aug. 2/11 – email	49(a), 19
724	Aug. 2/11 – email	49(a), 19
725	Aug. 3/11 – email	49(a), 19
732	Aug. 4/11 – email	49(a), 19
733	Aug. 4/11 – email	49(a), 19
736	Aug. 5/11 – email	49(a), 19
737	Aug. 5/11 – email	49(a), 19
739	Aug. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
740	Aug. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
741	Aug. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
742	Aug. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
743	Aug. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
744	Aug. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
745	Aug. 9/11 – email	49(a), 19
746	Aug. 9/11 – email	49(a), 19
752	Aug. 10/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
753	Aug. 11/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
754	Aug. 15/11 – email	49(a), 19
756	Aug. 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
757	Aug. 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
758	Aug. 16/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
759	Aug. 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
760	Aug. 16/11 - email	49(a), 19
762	Aug. 17/11 - email	49(a), 19
763	Aug. 17/11 - email	49(a), 19
764	Aug. 17/11 - email	49(a), 19
765	Aug. 17/11 - email	49(a), 19
766	Aug. 17/11 - email	49(a), 19
768	Aug. 22/11 – email	49(a), 19
769	Aug. 23/11 - email	49(a), 19
770	Aug. 23/11 - email	49(a), 19
771	Aug. 23/11 - email	49(a), 19
773	Aug. 23/11 - email	49(a), 19
775	Aug. 23/11 - email	49(a), 19
776	Aug. 23/11 - email	49(a), 19
778	Aug. 29/11 - email	49(a), 19
780	Aug. 31/11 – email	49(a), 19
782	Sept. 1/11 – email	49(a), 19
786	Sept. 2/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
787	Sept. 2/11 – email	49(a), 19
788	Sept. 2/11 – email	49(a), 19
789	Sept. 2/11 – email	49(a), 19
794	Sept. 6/11 - email	49(a), 19
795	Sept. 6/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
796	Sept. 6/11 - email	49(a), 19
797	Sept. 6/11 - email	49(a), 19
798	Sept. 7/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
799	Sept. 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
800	Sept. 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
801	Sept. 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
802	Sept. 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
803	Sept. 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
804	Sept. 7/11 - email	49(a), 19
809	Sept. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
810	Sept. 8/11 - email	49(a), 19
811	Sept. 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
812	Sept. 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
813	Sept. 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
814	Sept. 9/11 - email	49(a), 19
824	Sept. 13/11 – email	49(a), 19
825	Sept. 17/11 – email	49(a), 19
826	Sept. 19/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
827	Sept. 19/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
828	Sept. 19/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
830	Sept. 20/11 - email	49(a), 19
832	Sept. 20/11 - email	49(a), 19
833	Sept. 20/11 - email	49(a), 19
834	Sept. 20/11 - email	49(a), 19
835	Sept. 20/11 - email	49(a), 19
840	Sept. 21/11 - email	49(a), 19
841	Sept. 21/11 - email	49(a), 19
842	Sept. 21/11 - email	49(a), 19
843	Sept. 21/11 - email	49(a), 19
852	Sept. 22/11 - email	49(a), 19
856	Sept. 24/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
857	Sept. 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
858	Sept. 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
859	Sept. 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
861	Sept. 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
862	Sept. 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
863	Sept. 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
864	Sept. 26/11 – email	49(a), 19
865	Sept. 27/11 – email	49(a), 19
869	Sept. 28/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
870	Sept. 29/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
871	Sept. 29/11 – email	49(a), 19
874	Oct. 3/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
875	Oct. 3/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19
876	Oct. 3/11 – email	49(a), 19
877	Oct. 4/11 – email and attachment	49(a), 19

---

¹ The university identified a few other records in the index as excluded from the Act  under section 65(6).

² Order MO-2589; see also Ministry of the Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner, 2010 ONSC 991 (Div. Ct.).

³ Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care) v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2003] O.J. No. 4123 (C.A.); see also Order PO-2157.

⁴ Order PO-2157.

⁵ Ontario (Solicitor General) v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner) (2001), 55 O.R. (3d) 355 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 507.

⁶ Orders P-1560 and PO-2106.

⁷ Ontario (Solicitor General) v. Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner), cited above.

⁸ Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) v. Goodis, cited above.

⁹ Order 11.

¹⁰ Orders P-257, P-427, P-1412, P-1621, R-980015, MO-1550-F and PO-2225.

¹¹ Orders P-1409, R-980015, PO-2225 and MO-2344.

¹² Order PO-1880, upheld on judicial review in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Pascoe, [2002] O.J. No. 4300 (C.A.).

¹³ Order M-352.

¹⁴ Order MO-1573.

¹⁵ Section 54(2).

¹⁶ Orders P-85, P-221 and PO-1954-I.

¹⁷ Orders P-624 and PO-2559.

¹⁸ Order PO-2554.

¹⁹ Orders M-909, PO-2469 and PO-2592.

²⁰ Order MO-2185.

²¹ Order MO-2246.

²² Index does not include records withheld under section 21(1) as the appellant removed these from the scope of the appeal.