ORDER PO-4719

Appeal PA25-00073

Tribunals Ontario

September 5, 2025

Summary: An individual’s request for records relating to legal proceedings was forwarded to Tribunals Ontario. They appealed because the tribunal did not issue a decision within the prescribed time limit. While a decision was issued for some responsive records, the tribunal continued searching for additional responsive records. The decision-maker finds that the tribunal has not issued a final access decision for all responsive records, and the request is deemed to have been refused. The tribunal is ordered to issue a final access decision for any remaining responsive records by September 19, 2025.

Statutes Considered: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31 , as amended sections 26 and 29.

OVERVIEW:

[1] On July 31, 2024, the appellant asked the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the ministry) for access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act  to:

Copies of all documents including but not limited to: Notes, draft decisions, draft orders, and…all email communications; all internal notes; copies of all recordings, transcripts relating to [two proceedings]; List of [Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB)] employees who accessed these files - please include dates and reason for accessing the file; any document relating to the upload and retrieval of this file from [a specific former member]. Time period: January 1, 2021 to August 7, 2024.

[2] On August 2, 2024, the ministry advised the appellant that their request had been forwarded to Tribunals Ontario (the tribunal) under section 25(1) of the Act.

[3] On August 7, 2024, the appellant expanded the scope of their initial request to also include:

1. Any and all documents including written request(s), communications and authorization permitting [a specific member] to provide legal services through their firm from November 2023 until present date;

2. Any and all documents including written request(s), communications and authorization permitting [a specific member] to act as a paralegal on their own [Landlord and Tenant Board] file and subsequent enforcement proceedings [specific proceedings].

[4] On August 31, 2024, the appellant asked the tribunal when a decision would be issued in response to their request.

[5] On September 4, 2024, the tribunal confirmed receipt of the original and supplemental requests and stated that it was processing the request.

[6] On March 2, 2025,[1] the appellant appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (the IPC) because the tribunal failed to issue a decision to the appellant within 30 days of the access request. File PA25-00073 was opened.

[7] On April 14, 2025, the tribunal issued an interim access decision, advising that some of the responsive records may be exempt from disclosure under the solicitor-client privilege exemption at section 19 of the Act and internal correspondence related to adjudicative processes are protected by deliberative privilege. It also provided a fee estimate of $1500 for 50 hours of search time and requested a $750 deposit.

[8] On June 16, 2025, the IPC reminded the tribunal that an interim access decision does not cure a deemed refusal and encouraged the tribunal to issue a final decision by July 4, 2025.

[9] On July 14, 2025, the tribunal confirmed that it had not yet issued a final access decision to the appellant and could not provide an expected timeframe for doing so.

[10] On July 25, 2025, I decided to conduct an expedited inquiry and issued a Notice of Expedited Inquiry encouraging the tribunal to issue a final access decision by August 15, 2025.

[11] On August 15, 2025, the tribunal issued a decision denying access to records and communications among staff and adjudicators regarding tribunal adjudicative processes and discussions to facilitate drafting of decisions under section 65(3.1) of the Act and common law deliberative privilege/secrecy.

[12] The tribunal also advised that it was informed by the LTB that there may be additional responsive records and its staff were searching for any additional records, which would require several more weeks to complete. It further advised that, if additional responsive records are located by the LTB, they will be addressed in a further decision, which will be provided by September 19, 2025.

[13] Considering the above, and to ensure there are no further delays in processing this access request, I will order the tribunal to issue a final decision to the appellant for any remaining responsive records.

DISCUSSION:

[14] Section 26 of the Act outlines the time parameters for an institution to respond to an access request:

Where a person requests access to a record, the head of the institution to which the request is made or if a request is forwarded or transferred under section 25, the head of the institution to which it is forwarded or transferred, shall, subject to sections 27, 28 and 57, within thirty days after the request is received,

(a) give written notice to the person who made the request as to whether or not access to the record or a part thereof will be given; and

(b) if access is to be given, give the person who made the request access to the record or part thereof, and where necessary for the purpose cause the record to be produced.

[15] Section 29(4) of the Act outlines the circumstances giving rise to a deemed refusal:

A head who fails to give the notice required under section 26 or subsection 28(7) concerning a record shall be deemed to have given notice of refusal to give access to the record on the last day of the period during which notice should have been given.

[16] Previous IPC orders have found that a decision to extend the time for responding to a request[2] and/or an interim decision/fee estimate[3] should be issued within the initial 30-day time limit for responding to a request.

[17] Where a time extension is not claimed, or an interim decision/fee estimate is not issued within the initial 30-day time limit, it is expected that, prior to the expiry of the 30-day time limit in section 26 of the Act, subject to sections 28 and 57 of the Act, written notice will be given to the requester as to whether access to the record or a part thereof will be given and for access to the record to then be given to the requester. This is referred to as a final access decision. If a final access decision is not issued prior to the expiry of this 30-day time limit, the institution would be in a “deemed refusal” pursuant to section 29(4) of the Act.

[18] Previous IPC orders have found that issuing a time extension[4] or an interim decision/fee estimate[5] once the 30-day time limit has expired does not cure a deemed refusal.

[19] After the appellant’s initial request to the ministry was forwarded to the tribunal and the appellant filed a supplemental request, the tribunal acknowledged receipt of the request on September 4, 2024. On April 14, 2025, the tribunal issued an interim access decision, but this was after the initial 30-day time limit for doing so. While the tribunal has now issued a final access decision for some responsive records on August 15, 2025, it has also identified additional locations in which responsive records may exist and for which a final access decision has not been issued. As a final access decision was not issued to the appellant within 30 days of the request and the tribunal is still searching for any remaining responsive records for which it has not issued a final access decision, the tribunal is deemed to have refused the access request.

[20] Therefore, I find the tribunal to be in a deemed refusal situation under section 29(4) of the Act.

[21] To ensure that there are no further delays, I will order the tribunal to issue a final access decision for any remaining responsive records to the appellant.

ORDER:

1. I order the tribunal to issue a final access decision to the appellant regarding access to any remaining records in accordance with the Act, by September 19, 2025.
2. To verify compliance, the tribunal shall provide me with a copy by email of the decision referred to in provision 1 by September 19, 2025.

Original Signed by:		September 5, 2025
Asma Mayat
Case Lead