ORDER MO-4647

Appeal MA22-00633

Township of Severn

April 25, 2025

Summary: An individual made a request to the Township of Severn for access to records related to the septic/sewage system at a specified address. The township granted access to all the information pertaining to that specified address. It withheld information pertaining to other properties. The individual appealed the township’s decision to withhold information related to other properties and questioned whether the search was reasonable.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the withheld information is not responsive to the appellant’s request. She also finds that the township’s search was reasonable.

Statutes Considered: Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56 , as amended, section 17.

OVERVIEW:

[1] In November 2021, the Township of Severn (the township) inspected the appellant’s septic system and found that her system was in compliance. However, in July 2022, the appellant received a deficiency notice from the township indicating that it had concerns as to whether her system was functioning properly due to its age.

[2] Due to this discrepancy, the appellant made a request to the township, under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act  (the Act ), for the following information:

All records relating to the septic/sewage system at [specified address], Port Severn, Ontario (the entire file) including, but not limited to all inspection records and inspection reports, notes, deficiency notices, Township letters to the homeowner(s) etc. Please provide all of the related records including hard copies or electronic/digital records etc.

[3] In its decision, the township granted full access to all of the responsive records except for one email which attached two lists of all properties in the septic reinspection program. The township disclosed the email and the information in the lists that related to the property identified in the request but withheld the information about all other properties under section 14(1) (personal privacy) of the Act .[1]

[4] Dissatisfied with the township’s decision not to disclose in full, the list of properties in the septic reinspection program, the appellant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (the IPC).

[5] During mediation, the appellant argued that the township should have identified additional records as responsive to her request.

[6] She questioned why the township did not locate the original inspection report from November 2021 and related email correspondence between herself and the Deputy Chief Building Official (Deputy CBO) when responding to her request.[2]

[7] The township agreed to conduct an additional search for responsive records, which resulted in it locating a 45-page document, along with the original inspection report. Despite this search, the appellant continues to believe that additional records responsive to her request exist.

[8] As a mediated resolution was not reached, the appeal was transferred to the adjudication stage of the appeal process, where an adjudicator may conduct an inquiry under the Act .

[9] During the inquiry, the adjudicator originally assigned to the appeal sought and received representations from the township and the appellant.[3] This appeal was then transferred to me to continue the adjudication. On my review of the parties’ representations and the record at issue, I determined that the information withheld by the township under section 14(1) might not be responsive to the appellant’s request. As a result, I decided to seek representations from the parties on the issue of responsiveness. Both parties submitted representations on this issue.

[10] For the reasons that follow, I find that the information that the township withheld is not responsive to the appellant’s request and I uphold its decision not to disclose it. I also find that the township conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the appellant’s request.

RECORD:

[11] The record at issue is an email,[4] attaching two lists identifying properties involved in the septic re-inspection program. The township disclosed the email and the entries on the lists that relate to the property identified in the request. Remaining at issue are the withheld portions of the lists, which identify and contain information about properties other than the one specified in the request.

ISSUES:

A. Are the withheld portions of the record responsive to the request?

B. Did the township conduct a reasonable search for responsive records?

DISCUSSION:

Issue A: Are the withheld portions of the record responsive to the request

[12] Section 17  of the Act  imposes certain obligations on requesters and institutions when submitting and responding to requests for access to records. This section states, in part:

(1) A person seeking access to a record shall,

(a) make a request in writing to the institution that the person believes has custody or control of the record, and specify that the request is being made under this Act ;

(b) provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the institution, upon a reasonable effort, to identify the record;

. . .

(2) If the request does not sufficiently describe the record sought, the institution shall inform the applicant of the defect and shall offer assistance in reformulating the request so as to comply with subsection (1).

[13] To be considered responsive to the request, records must “reasonably relate” to the request.[5] Institutions should interpret requests liberally, in order to best serve the purpose and spirit of the Act . Generally, if there is ambiguity in the request, this should be resolved in the requester’s favour.[6]

Parties’ representations

[14] The township submits that the information it withheld from the record is not responsive to the appellant’s request. It submits that it does not relate to the address specified in the request but relates to other properties. As a result, the township submits that the information that it withheld is not information sought by the request. It submits that it disclosed to the appellant all information responsive to the request.

[15] The appellant submits that the information that the township withheld is responsive to her request, even though it relates to properties other than her property, which is the property specified in her request. She submits that the disclosure of the information about her property is useless unless she has information about the other properties that were also inspected. She submits that the information about the other properties would provide her with context to help her understand why her property was singled out for more rigorous enforcement than others.

[16] The appellant submits that the township should have interpreted her request broadly to include the information about other properties. She submits that she made two requests[7] to the township[8] in close proximity to one another and, as such, the township should have realized she was interested in information beyond her own property. She submits that although the withheld information does not contain information about her property it does not mean that it is unrelated.

[17] The appellant also submits that the township is aware that she is a severely disabled individual. As such, she expects that the township would have contacted her to clarify her requests as they were very similar and were submitted close to one another.

[18] The appellant further submits that the circumstances of her request are similar to the circumstances set out in Order PO-2661. She states that in Order PO-2661, the adjudicator considered the whole context of the request in finding that the institution had an obligation to contact the requester to clarify the request. She submits that due to the whole of what she sent to the township, specifically, her two requests together with her disability which is known to the township, the township should have offered her assistance in clarifying her request before identifying responsive records.

Analysis and findings

Clarification of the request

[19] As stated in section 17(2)  of the Act , if the request does not sufficiently describe the record sought, the institution must inform the applicant of the defect and must offer assistance in reformulating the request as to comply with subsection (1). If there is any ambiguity in the request, it should be resolved in the requester’s favour.

[20] For the reasons that follow, I find that the appellant’s request sufficiently described the records sought and did not contain any ambiguity requiring the township to seek clarification from her.

[21] On my review of the appellant’s request, I find that it is clear and specific. Her request is for information about the septic/sewage system at a specified address. In my view, it does not contain any ambiguity. The appellant argues that the word “homeowners” in her request is ambiguous and should have prompted the township to contact her for clarification. I disagree. I interpret her request to include the township’s correspondence to the homeowner or homeowners, as the case might be, of that specific address.

[22] The appellant also argues that her situation is similar to the situation in Order PO-2661, where the institution contacted the requester to clarify the request. I disagree. In Order PO-2661, the requester’s second paragraph of her request made it clear that the requester wanted more information (specifically, supporting documents) which is why the institution in that case determined that it was necessary to obtain clarification about what types of supporting documents the requester sought.[9] As such, there is nothing that indicates that the township should have sought clarification.

[23] Finally, I acknowledge that the appellant believes the township should have contacted her to clarify her request as it is aware that she is a severely disabled individual. However, in my view, there is no indication in her request that would have prompted the township to seek clarification. Going forward, if the appellant seeks the assistance of the township to formulate her request, she might consider specifically asking the township to contact her to discuss her request and confirm what information she is seeking access to through her requests.

Responsiveness of the withheld information

[24] As indicated above, to be considered responsive to the request, records must “reasonably relate” to the request.[10]

[25] For the reasons that follow, I find that the withheld information does not reasonably relate to the request.

[26] On my review of the information at issue, I find that it is not responsive to the appellant’s request because it relates to other properties. As stated above, the appellant’s request clearly stated that she seeks access to information related to a specific address. The township has disclosed the information in the record that pertains to the specified address in her request. The remaining information relates to the septic system belonging to other properties.

[27] Accordingly, I find that the withheld information is not responsive to the request and uphold the township’s decision not to disclose it.

Issue B: Did the township conduct a reasonable search for records?

[28] The appellant claims that further records responsive to her request exist and the township should have located these records during its search.

[29] Where a requester claims 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 17.[11] If I am satisfied 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.

[30] 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 it has made a reasonable effort to identify and locate responsive records.[12] 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 (responsive) to the request.[13]

[31] 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 such records exist.[14]

Representations

[32] The township submits that it conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the appellant’s request. In support of its position, the township submitted an affidavit from its Clerk, Chief Building Official (CBO) and Deputy CBO. The affidavits identify the individuals involved in the search, explain where they searched, and describe the results of their search.

[33] In the Clerk’s affidavit, she explains that upon receipt of the request she sent an email to all applicable staff requesting they search for all specific inspection records, reports, notes, deficiency notices, township letters to homeowners and other records for the address specified in the request. She attests that responsive records were provided by three township employees.

[34] With respect to the search that the Clerk herself conducted, she attests that she searched the township’s records management system as well as its S:\\drive (main server) for any records related to the address specified in the request.

[35] In his affidavit, the CBO attests to the searches that he conducted for records responsive to the request. He explains his initial search where he conducted a keyword search for correspondence relating to the specified property and a review of electronic directories related to the Building Code Act orders relating to the property. He explains his secondary search which he conducted in the same manner to determine if any records had been missed. He states that he also asked certain identified township employees, who had previously been asked by the Clerk to conduct a search, to conduct a secondary search for responsive records.

[36] In the Deputy CBO’s affidavit, he attests that he initially searched MS Outlook for possible correspondence related to the specified address in the request. The Deputy CBO also attests that his secondary search of MS Outlook resulted in him locating an email from the appellant received in January 2022, requesting a copy of the re-inspection report from her file, which was subsequently disclosed to the appellant.

[37] In response, the appellant submits that the township did not conduct a reasonable search. She submits that it is preposterous that the Deputy CBO did not know why the original inspection report and accompany email were not initially found. The appellant submits that the clerk’s search of the S:\\drive is inadequate, and that a network administrator would perform a much more complete search. She also submits that the Deputy CBO did not state his search terms for his first search in his affidavit.

[38] In the remaining portions of the appellant’s representations, she discusses the township’s decision to not disclose the results of the septic inspection to taxpayers unless they requested it, the township’s decision not to disclose the engineering firm’s inspection report, the lack of information about a 40 year rule for a septic system, the delegation power under the Building Code Act,[15] the power of the township’s septic inspector to alter the engineering report, and allegations of misconduct by the township as it allowed its septic inspector to alter the engineering report.

Analysis and findings

[39] For the following reasons, I find that the township conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the appellant’s request.

[40] In its representations, the township identified the individuals involved in the search, explained where they searched, and described the results of their search. In my view, the township’s search was logical and comprehensive. I accept they were conducted by experienced employees knowledgeable in the subject matter who expended reasonable efforts to locate records which are reasonably related to the request. I am satisfied that the township has provided sufficient evidence to establish that their search for responsive records was reasonable and in compliance with their obligations under section 17.

[41] I note that many of the issues the appellant raised about the township’s searches have to do with how and why the township’s septic inspector changed the original inspection report from November 2021 (the engineering report) for her property from “in compliance” to “not in non-compliance” on the inspection report from July 2022. In my view, these issues do not address or relate to whether the township conducted a reasonable search.

[42] As noted above, the appellant initially raised the issue of whether the township conducted a reasonable search because the township did not locate the original inspection report from November 2021. However, during its second search, conducted during mediation, the township did locate this document.

[43] Moreover, I am not persuaded that the appellant has established a reasonable basis for concluding that further responsive records exist. She has not provided any explanation as to why, despite the township’s searches, additional records should exist. As noted above, 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 such records exist.[16] In this case, I find that the appellant has not stated a reasonable basis for why she believes additional records exist.

[44] For the reasons stated above, I find that the township conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to the appellant’s request.

ORDER:

1. I uphold the township’s decision to deny access to the information at issue.
2. I uphold the township’s search for responsive records.

Original Signed by:		April 25, 2025
Lan An
Adjudicator