ORDER MO-4705

Appeal MA23-00390

Toronto District School Board

October 15, 2025

Summary: The appellant sought access under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act  to records  relating to the admissions process for the Central Student Interest Programs at the Toronto District School Board. The board located one responsive record and issued a fee estimate to the appellant. The appellant appealed the board’s decision, claiming the board adopted an overly narrow interpretation of his request and the fee estimate was unreasonably high.

In this order, the adjudicator finds the board applied a narrow interpretation of the appellant’s request. She orders the board to clarify the request with the appellant and issue a revised access decision responding to the clarified request.

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

Orders and Investigation Reports Considered: Orders P-880 and PO-1730.

OVERVIEW:

[1] The appellant submitted an access request under the Municipal Freedom of Information  and  Protection of Privacy Act  (the Act ) to the Toronto District School Board (the board) for the following information:

… the entire audit log history for lottery admissions to Student Interest (specialized) Programs in the 2022-23 admission cycle. I request all logs for all students and all specialized programs. The logs should not contain information that can be used to identify individuals (like name), but they should allow to connect the student history with their admission relevant application details like self identification as a member of priority groups, gender, and local vs out-of-area status. For greater clarity, I am looking for an outcome to SQL query similar to the one below: SELECT al.*, a.self_identification, a.gender, a.local FROM table_sip_lottery_audit_logs al LEFT JOIN table_sip_lottery_applications a ON al.student_id = a.student_id (The names of tables and variables are, of course, approximate.)

[2] The appellant noted concerns regarding possible errors made by the board in the parallel lottery admission process to alternative elementary schools. The appellant also took issue with the manual nature of the application process. The appellant identified the period of November 11, 2022 to April 1, 2023 for the search.

[3] As background, the records requested by the appellant relate to the board’s secondary Central Student Interest Programs. The board states this program offers nearly 40 specialized schools and programs such as Arts, Exceptional Athletes, Math, Science and Technology, Integrated Technology, and Leadership Pathway. According to the board, students apply for these programs in the first three weeks of November every year. The board acknowledges there were barriers to access to these programs due to the admission process, entrance criteria, and geography. However, the board states it implemented a new Student Interest Programs Policy to allow students greater access to these programs.

[4] To apply for a Central Student Interest Program, the board submits students fill in an application form which provides them with the option to self-identify as an underserved group. For example, if the student is applying for a Math, Science or Technology program, the board submits students have the option to identify their gender-identity. The board states self-identification of an underserved group or gender is not required and confirms not every student chooses to self-identify.

[5] The board submits it created admission priorities based on its commitment to improving representations among students in Central Student Interest Programs to reflect the diversity of the board and the City of Toronto. The board submits students are admitted to programs based on the following parameters:

• First Nations, Métis, and Inuit applicants will be placed in their primary choice application when applying for an entry grade (most commonly Grade 9). Applicants will be given first priority for primary and alternate choice applications in other grades and will be placed if/when space is available. The board states this was the prioritization process in November 2023. In November 2022, these students were included in the 20% priority seats listed in the second bullet below;
• 20% of seats will be allocated to primary choice applications from historically and currently underserved communities (students identifying as Black, Latin American, and Middle Eastern). In circumstances where alternate choice applications are being considered, self-identifying applicants will be prioritized in programs that have not filled their 20% of seats;
• 50% of spaces for students identifying as female in Math, Science and Technology programs; and
• Admission priority to students who reside in the City of Toronto before those who reside outside the City of Toronto.

[6] The board submits these priorities are reflected in the lottery process run by the board’s student information system, PowerSchool.[1]

[7] After the lottery is run and if seats in the program become vacant, the board states it manually places students from the waitlist into a seat in the program. The placement is specifically noted in the Student Interest Program audit log (the Audit Log).

[8] After locating records responsive to the appellant’s request, the board issued an access decision to the appellant denying him access to the Audit Log in full, claiming the application of the personal privacy exemption in section 14(1)  of the Act .

[9] The appellant appealed the board’s decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (the IPC).

[10] During mediation, the board provided the appellant with a sample audit log. The board did not charge the appellant a fee for the sample. The board advised the appellant it could issue a fee estimate to the appellant if he wishes to pursue access to the audit log, noting that portions may be withheld under section 14(1). The appellant confirmed his interest in the Audit Log and the board issued an interim access decision with a fee estimate.

[11] Following further discussions, the appellant narrowed his request to exclude the following information:

1. The schools with 20 students or fewer in the entry grade (small programs);
2. All non-entry grade information; and
3. Any comments or comment sections in the audit log.

[12] The board issued a revised fee estimate to the appellant, which included two options for the fee:

1. The first revised fee estimate is $2,469. The board based this number on 5,538 minutes (or 92.3 hours) of preparation time, as described in the letter. The board requested a 50% fee deposit. The board based this option on its staff having to remove all audit log lines/sections with comments, all lines/sections containing data regarding small programs in the entry grade, and all non-entry grade data/information.
2. The second revised fee estimate is $10,242. The board based this amount on 20,484 minutes (or 341.4 hours) of preparation time, as described in the letter. The board requested a 50% fee deposit. The board based this option on its staff having to remove all non-entry grade data and small programs and redact comments and comments sections.

[13] Regarding the second option, the board advised a “student’s move into a vacant seat in a [particular specialized] program, can easily be misconstrued/misinterpreted, misunderstood, taken out of context, manipulated or questioned incorrect.” The board, therefore, recommended the appellant to not pursue access to the comments in the audit logs.

[14] The appellant was not satisfied with the board’s fee estimates and took issue with the board’s interpretation of the scope of his request.

[15] Mediation did not resolve the appeal and it was transferred to the adjudication stage, where an adjudicator may conduct an inquiry. I sought and received representations from the appellant and the board.[2]

[16] In the discussion that follows, I find the board adopted a narrow and literal interpretation of the appellant’s request without first clarifying the scope of the request. I will order the board to clarify the request with the appellant and then issue a revised access decision that responds to the clarified request.

DISCUSSION:

[17] Given my finding below, the only issue I will be considering in this order is the scope of the appellant’s request.

[18] The appellant’s request states, in part:

… the entire audit log history for lottery admissions to Student Interest (specialized) Programs in the 2022-23 admission cycle. I request all logs for all students and all specialized programs. The logs should not contain information that can be used to identify individuals (like name), but they should allow to connect the student history with their admission relevant application details like self identification as a member of priority groups, gender, and local vs out-of-area status.

[19] The board claims the scope of the appellant’s request is limited to the Audit Log.

[20] The appellant submits that he asked for the “entire audit log history for lottery admissions”, which includes all “relevant application data, including gender, self-identification, and location of a student. The appellant submits he wishes to “analyze the algorithm” of the Audit Log.

[21] Section 17  of the Act  imposes certain obligations on requesters and institutions when submitting and responding to request 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

[22] To be considered responsive to the request, records must “reasonably relate” to the request.[3] Institutions should interpret requests liberally 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.[4]

Parties’ representations

The board’s representations

[23] The board submits the only record responsive to the appellant’s request is the Audit Log.

[24] To support its position, the board provided an affidavit sworn by its Centrally Assigned Principal, Secondary Program and Admissions (the CAP) in which she describes both the Central Student Interest Programs and her involvement with the board’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Office in responding to the appellant’s request. The CAP manages the Central Student Interest Program admissions.

[25] The board and CAP submit that she engaged in an email exchange with the appellant where she confirmed the existence of the Audit Log for the Central Student Interest Program admission process. Specifically, the CAP confirmed to the appellant:

There is a full audit log that records every move for each individual applicant, but each audit log is independent; there is nothing that links together the moves or shifts for more than one student.

[26] After this correspondence, the CAP was advised by the board’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Administrator that the appellant submitted a request for records, specifically, the “entire audit log history.”

[27] The CAP takes the position she is familiar with the subject matter of the appellant’s request and made reasonable efforts to locate the records reasonably located to it. Specifically, the CAP claims the appellant seeks access to the Audit Log, given his prior knowledge of the specific document that she referenced in the email correspondence with him (quoted above). Given these circumstances, the CAP and the board submit the only record responsive to the appellant’s request is the Audit Log.

The appellant’s representations

[28] The appellant submits his request is broader than only the Audit Log. Rather, the appellant seeks access to the “entire audit log history for lottery admissions.” The appellant submits the request included “relevant application data, including gender, self-identification, and location of a student.” The appellant submits he used the term “audit log” in his request because that was the term the CAP used in their email discussions. However, he did not intend to limit his request to only the Audit Log if it does not contain all types of information that he seeks access to.

[29] To this end, the appellant submits his request included a query in the Structured Query Language (SQL) format that listed all the information he seeks access to. The appellant submits he used SQL because it is the standard language to process database queries and is “logical and precise in nature.” The appellant submits he had assumed the board had access to all relevant databases, which would mean the SQL query would be all the board needed to use to locate the information he sought access to.

[30] The appellant also submits he attached an example of an “audit log” provided to him by the CAP as an example of the “audit log” data that he seeks access to. The appellant submits his request made it clear that he sought access to information that could confirm whether errors were made in the Central Student Interest Programs application process. He claims there is no way of “carefully examining the workings of the mechanism without application data, like racial self-identification.”

[31] The appellant submits his entire request mentioned self-identification and other relevant application information multiple times. The appellant submits the board did not reach out to him to clarify the scope of the request. The appellant notes he raised his interest in reviewing application information relating to self-identity throughout the mediation process.

The board’s reply representations

[32] The board submits the appellant’s request “was clearly for the ‘audit log’ and therefore, the Board interpreted the request literally and provided a fee estimate for the audit log.” The board submits the audit log was specified in the request and therefore became the board’s focus in responding to the search. The board submits the request was “clear on its face”; accordingly, the board submits it never considered seeking clarification.

The appellant’s representations

[33] The appellant reiterates his request was not for only the Audit Log. The appellant refers to his request for self-identification information, such as “self-identified race” and “gender” of the applicants, which are not present in the Audit Log sample provided to him by the board.

Analysis and findings

[34] I find the board’s interpretation of the request to be for the Audit Log only is an overly narrow and restrictive interpretation of the appellant’s request. I note the board submits it interpreted the appellant’s request literally. I agree; the board adopted an overly narrow and literal interpretation of the appellant’s request. I find the board ought to have considered the entirety of the appellant’s request, not simply the language of “audit log” in the request and then clarified the scope with the appellant directly.

[35] Based on my review of the appellant’s request, I find he does not seek access to only the Audit Log identified by the board as responsive. Rather, I find the appellant clearly seeks access to the “entire audit log history” [emphasis added] which indicates more than simply the Audit Log. Further, the appellant includes the additional information that he seeks access to, specifically “admission relevant application details like self identification as a member of priority groups, gender, and local vs out-of-area status.” According to the board’s representations, the Audit Log contains only the following fields:

• Timestamp
• Account/email
• Mode
• First name, middle name, last name
• Date of birth
• Seating unit
• Description
• Comments[5]

[36] The board provided the IPC with a sample of the Audit Log. I reviewed the sample and it does not appear to contain the self-identification information (i.e. race, gender, geographical location of the applicant) the appellant seeks access to.

[37] Therefore, I find a liberal interpretation of the request, in keeping with the purpose and spirit of freedom of information legislation, would include information that exists outside of the Audit Log itself. By interpreting the request as it did, the board unilaterally narrowed the scope of the request which resulted in a denial of access to the self-identification information sought by the appellant. It is clear from a review of the parties’ representations that the board failed to properly consider the appellant’s entire request and limited the scope of the request to only the Audit Log based on the email correspondence between the CAP and the appellant in which the CAP confirmed the existence of the Audit Log.

[38] Clarity concerning the scope of a request and what the responsive records are is a fundamental first step in responding to a request and, subsequently, determining the issues in an appeal.[6] Previous orders of this office have confirmed the importance of properly determining the scope of a request. In Order P-880, the adjudicator stated, “the request itself sets out the boundaries of relevancy and circumscribes the records which will ultimately be identified as being responsive to the request.” In Order PO-1730, the adjudicator further found “the purpose and spirit of freedom of information legislation is best served when government institutions adopt a liberal interpretation of a request.” In addition, previous orders have clearly stated that, upon receipt of a request, an institution has “an obligation to identify and locate any records which it believes are responsive to the request.”[7]

[39] In my view, the board did not meet its obligation to clarify and identify the records responsive to the appellant’s request. The board argues, in its representations, that the request was for the Audit Log only, despite the wording of the request. I find the board unilaterally narrowed the appellant’s request by determining he sought access to the Audit Log.

[40] It is clear from the appellant’s request and representations that he seeks access to more than only the Audit Log. Specifically, the appellant seeks access to the Audit Log as well as any “self-identification” information such as the race, gender, and geographical location of the applicants to the Central Student Interest Programs. The appellant takes the position the Demographic Report identified in the school board’s representations is also responsive to his request. According to the board, the Demographic Report includes the following information:

• Student Name, Student Number, Date of Birth, Address
• Requested Grade, Requested School/Programs
• Current School (TDSB and non-TDSB)
• Race (the specific racial self-identification)
• Gender (all applicants)
• Parent/Guardian name(s) and contact information
• Student email address
• Final results (seated/waitlist and position)

[41] The board takes the position that the Demographic Report is not within the scope of the appellant’s request. I do not agree. While certain information, such as the names of the applicant’s parent/guardian or the applicant’s student number and date of birth, may not be responsive[8], I find the applicant’s race, gender, and final result could be. However, as the appellant submits, the board “has never reached out to [him] to clarify the scope of the request.”

[42] In my view, the appellant’s request was broader than the board’s narrow interpretation. The appellant clearly requested the “entire audit log history” and identified the type of self-identification information he sought access to. Despite the wording of the request and the information the appellant identified, the board decided to limit the appellant’s request to the Audit Log without clarifying the scope of the request with the appellant first and considering what other records may be responsive to the appellant’s request. I emphasise the purpose and spirit of the Act  is best served when institutions adopt a liberal interpretation of a request. The board failed to adopt a liberal interpretation of the appellant’s request; rather, by its own admission, the board adopted a literal interpretation of the request. To the extent that there was any ambiguity in the board’s understanding of the request or what records might be responsive, section 17(2) requires the board to work with the appellant to reformulate the request, if necessary, and not to narrow it unilaterally.

[43] Therefore, I find that, considering the circumstances, the board should have clarified the scope of the request with the appellant in accordance with section 17(2)  of the Act . I will order the board to clarify the scope of the request with the appellant, locate any additional records that may be responsive to the appellant’s request, and issue an access decision to the appellant in relation to those records.

[44] Given these circumstances, it is premature to consider whether the board’s current fee estimate should be upheld. I note the board provided the appellant with a fee estimate that included the Demographic Report within the scope. However, the appellant and board’s representations do not appear to agree what information is or is not within the scope of the appellant’s request, even if the Demographic Report would be. For example, the board and the appellant appear to disagree about whether the “comments” portion of the Audit Log is responsive. In the absence of clarification between the board and appellant regarding the scope of the request, I will not consider whether the board’s fee estimate should be upheld or not.

[45] Moreover, it appears the board and the appellant disagree regarding the board’s capabilities in relation to the type of searches it can do to produce the information the appellant seeks access to. For example, the appellant takes the position that certain types of searches or codes, such as the use of Excel Macro, should be within the expertise of the board’s Technology and Management Services. However, the board takes the position it is not. The board and the appellant, in clarifying the scope of the request, should also confirm the types of searches that can or cannot be performed by the board to respond to the appellant’s clarified request.

ORDER:

1. I find the board ought to have contacted the appellant to clarify his request rather than unilaterally narrow the appellant’s request to the Audit Log.
2. I order the board to clarify the appellant’s request with him to ensure it applies a broad and liberal interpretation of the appellant’s request.
3. Once the appellant’s request is clarified, I order the board to conduct a search for responsive records and issue an access decision in relation to the record(s) located.
4. I confirm the board is permitted to claim a fee under section 45(1)  of the Act  in responding to the appellant’s request.

Original Signed by:		October 15, 2025
Justine Wai
Adjudicator