ORDER PO-4290  
Appeal PA17-503  
Ministry of Health  
August 17, 2022  
Summary: Pursuant to the Act, the appellant made a multi-part request regarding immunization  
and proposed amendments to the Immunization of School Pupil Act to the Ministry of Health. In  
responding to the request, the ministry divided the request into three separate batches. This  
order deals with the denial of access to records responsive to batch 2 of the request. The ministry  
denied access, in part, on the basis of the mandatory exemption in section 12(1) (Cabinet  
records), and the discretionary exemptions in sections 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and  
14(1)(i) (security of a system or procedure). The ministry also withheld records and information  
as non-responsive to the appellant’s request. At mediation, the appellant raised the issue of the  
possible application of the public interest override in section 23. The appellant also took the  
position that additional responsive records relating to her request should exist. In this order, the  
adjudicator upholds the ministry’s decision, in part. She finds that the information identified as  
non-responsive is not responsive to the request, upholds many of the ministry’s exemption claims  
and finds that section 23 does not apply to the information that is exempt under section 13(1).  
She orders the ministry to disclose two non-exempt records. Finally, she finds the ministry’s  
search for responsive records to be reasonable.  
Statutes Considered: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.  
F.31, as amended, sections 12(1), 13(1), and 14(1)(i).  
Order Considered: Order MO-1450.  
OVERVIEW:  
[1]  
The appellant made a request to the Ministry of Health1 (the ministry) under the  
1 At the time of the request, the ministry was known as the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.  
- 2 -  
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to:  
…the issue of immunization/vaccination and the Ministry of Health and other  
stakeholders’ efforts to increase vaccination/immunization cover rates,  
reduce vaccine hesitancy and require those who administer immunization  
to provide information to the local medical officer of health.  
I am interested in all records related to the proposed amendments to  
Immunization of School Pupil Act (ISPA). Including (1) records re Bill 87 (An  
Act to implement health measure and measure relating to seniors by  
enacting, amending or repealing various statutes) and (2) records re the  
former Bill 198 (Immunization of School Pupils Amendment Act, 2016)  
Format of Records: Wherever possible, I would like to receive records in  
electronic format.  
Definition of including in this letter, including mean including but not  
limited to.  
Definition of records in this letter, records mean all records, including  
reports, briefing notes, policy papers, presentations, recommendations,  
meeting notes, legal opinions, reviews, surveys, discussion papers and  
communication (letters, emails, messages and other correspondence).  
Please provide the following:  
1. For the period January 1, 2012 to April 10, 2017 all briefing notes which  
mention/discuss (a) proposed amendments to ISPA; or (b) ways to increase  
vaccination/immunization rates or reduce vaccine hesitancy.  
2. For the period January 1, 2012 to April 10, 2017, all records regarding  
(a) the legal implications of changes to vaccination/immunization  
legislation, including (b) the legal implications of the amendments to ISPA  
which are proposed by Bill 198 and Bill 87. (These include Canadian Charter  
of Human Rights and Freedoms implication Human Rights Code implication  
and International Treaties, Privacy Legislation, Right to Informed Consent,  
right to education and all other legal implications of the proposed changes.)  
3. For the period January 1, 2012 to April 10, 2017, all records (including  
reviews and surveys) which discuss solutions employed or considered by  
other jurisdictions in order to increase immunization/vaccination coverage  
rates and/or reduce vaccine hesitancy.  
4. For the period January 1, 2012 to April 10, 2017, all records discussing  
increasing vaccination/immunization rates and/or reducing vaccine  
hesitancy which involve vaccine/immunization stakeholders. Including  
records prepared by, provided by or in consultation with such stakeholder.  
- 3 -  
(Without limiting the generality of the request, stakeholders include medical  
association, manufacturers/vendors of vaccines, lobby groups and any  
other party or organization which has an interest financial or otherwise –  
in increasing vaccination rates or which supports increasing vaccination  
rates.)  
5. For the period January 1, 2012 to April 10, 2017, all records of meetings  
(including paperless meetings) in which stakeholders (a defined in 3 above)  
and Ministry of Health staff participated, in which improving  
vaccination/immunization coverage rates, mandatory vaccination, vaccine  
hesitancy or reducing exemptions from vaccination were discussed. This  
includes a list of such meetings.  
6. For the period of January 1, 2012 to April 10, 2017, all records concerning  
the drafting of proposed amendments to ISPA including all drafts,  
proposals, versions/iterations.  
7. For the period January 1, 2012 to April 10, 2017, all records which  
consider the strengths and weaknesses of proposed amendments to ISPA.  
8. For the period January 1, 2012 t April 10, 2017, all records which discuss  
the details of education sessions proposed under said amendments to ISPA,  
including records discussing location and timing, how educations content of  
sessions would be created and by whom, frequency of sessions, who the  
educators would be and possible cost.  
Such records may involve Ontario Ministry of Health (including Ontario’s  
Health Minister, The Deputy Health Minister, Associate Deputy Minister and  
other Ministry of Health public servants), Ontario Cabinet, any Ontario  
advisory  
body/board/commission  
dealing  
with  
vaccines/immunization/health. Ontario’s Public Health, Ontario’s Attorney  
General or Ministry of Health Legal Services Branch, the Ministry of  
Education and other government and non-government stakeholders.  
[2]  
The appellant specified that she would prefer to receive the records in electronic  
format; requested detailed information regarding any withheld records; and requested a  
fee waiver on the grounds of financial hardship.  
[3]  
The ministry acknowledged the request and advised the appellant that the request  
would be split into three separate requests and they would process the requests in  
batches. The subject matter of this appeal is the part of the request relates to parts 3, 7  
and 8 of the appellant’s request set out above which the ministry labelled as batch 2. The  
ministry also asked the appellant to narrow the scope of her request by removing emails  
due to the significant search time for these types of records. Also, the ministry suggested  
removing vaccine hesitancy as a phrase in its search and instead use phrase increasing  
immunization rates to improve the number of responsive records.  
- 4 -  
[4]  
The ministry then gave notice to a number of affected parties (organizations whose  
interests may be affected by disclosure of the record) and it issued an interim decision to  
the appellant granting partial access to the records. The ministry withheld certain  
information on the basis of the mandatory exemption at section 12(1) (cabinet records),  
and the discretionary exemption at section 19 (solicitor-client privilege). The ministry also  
granted a partial fee waiver, reducing the fee.  
[5]  
Following payment of the fee, the ministry issued a final decision in which it  
disclosed responsive records to the appellant withholding information on the basis of  
sections 21(1) (personal privacy) and 13(1) (advice or recommendation) in addition to  
sections 12(1) and 19 already claimed in its interim access decision. The ministry also  
withheld information on the basis that it was not responsive to the request.  
[6]  
The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision to the Information and Privacy  
Commissioner (IPC). A mediator was appointed to explore the possibility of resolution.  
During mediation, the appellant raised the issue of the discrepancy in the number of  
responsive records identified in the ministry’s interim decision versus the number of  
responsive records she was provided with as a result of the ministry’s final decision. The  
mediator confirmed that the ministry had erred in its identification of the number of  
responsive records in its interim decision. The appellant advised the mediator that further  
responsive records should exist relating to parts 3 and 8 of her request. The appellant  
also advised that she seeks access to the information identified as not responsive to her  
request.  
[7]  
The mediator asked the ministry to conduct a further search for records and to  
provide a description of the searches and for it to reconsider the disclosure of information  
it deemed as not responsive. The mediator further asked the ministry to provide the  
relevant exemptions and subsections that it relied on to withhold the exempt information.  
[8]  
The ministry conducted a further search and issued a revised decision granting  
access, in part, to information previously denied as not responsive to the request. The  
ministry advised the appellant that some of the information previously deemed as non-  
responsive to the request, had now been withheld pursuant to sections 13(1) and 14(1)(i)  
of the Act. The ministry also provided further detail of the exemptions claimed and  
provided the appellant with an updated index. The appellant informed the mediator that  
she is no longer appealing access to the information withheld under sections 19 and 21(1)  
but she continues to seek access to the information withheld under sections 12(1, 13(1),  
and 14(1)(i) as well as to information identified as not responsive to her request. The  
appellant also continues to believe that additional responsive records should exist and  
the reasonableness of the ministry’s search was added to the scope of the appeal. The  
appellant also believes that the ministry inappropriately narrowed the scope of her  
request so the issue of scope and responsiveness was also added to appeal. Finally, the  
appellant raised the possible application of the public interest override in section 23 to  
the withheld information.  
[9]  
As mediation did not resolve the appeal, the file was moved to the adjudication  
stage of the appeals process where an adjudicator may conduct an inquiry under the Act.  
- 5 -  
The adjudicator assigned to the appeal decided to conduct an inquiry. He sought and  
received representations from the ministry and the appellant. Representations were  
shared in accordance with the IPC’s Code of Procedure.  
[10] The appeal was then transferred to me to continue with its adjudication.2 In this  
order, I partly uphold the ministry’s decision to withhold records and information under  
sections 12(1), 13(1) and 14(1)(i). I find that the information identified as not responsive  
is not responsive to the appellant’s request. I find that the public interest override does  
not apply to the information and record I found exempt under section 13(1) and finally I  
find the ministry’s search for records to be reasonable. I order the ministry to disclose  
the records and information that I find are not exempt.  
RECORDS:  
[11] The records at issue consist of emails and their attachments as set out in the Index  
of Records in the appendix to this order.  
ISSUES:  
A.  
B.  
Did the ministry properly identify parts of the records as not responsive?  
Does the mandatory exemption at section 12(1) for Cabinet records apply to the  
records?  
C.  
D.  
E.  
F.  
Does the discretionary exemption at section 13(1) for advice and  
recommendations apply to the records?  
Does the discretionary exemption at section 14(1)(i) apply to records, 185, 189,  
191, and 195?  
Did the ministry properly exercise its discretion in claiming sections 13(1) and  
14(1)(i)?  
Is there a compelling public interest in disclosure of the records that clearly  
outweighs the purpose of the section 13(1) exemption?  
Did the ministry conduct a reasonable search for records?  
G.  
DISCUSSION:  
Issue A: Did the ministry properly identify parts of the records as not  
responsive?  
[12] The ministry identified four records (95, 163, 230 and 246) as not responsive to  
the appellant’s request. Section 24 of the Act imposes certain obligations on appellants  
and institutions when submitting and responding to requests for access to records. This  
section states, in part:  
2
I have reviewed all the file materials and representations and have determined that I do not require  
further information before making my determination.  
- 6 -  
(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;  
(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] Institutions should adopt a liberal interpretation of a request, in order to best serve  
the purpose and spirit of the Act. Generally, ambiguity in the request should be resolved  
in the requester’s favour.3 To be considered responsive to the request, records must  
reasonably relate to the request.4  
[14] The ministry submits that the appellant’s request provided a clear description of  
the records sought and the responsive records fell into three categories and relate to  
three subject matters:  
1.  
2.  
3.  
Information from other jurisdictions on ways to increase  
immunization coverage/vaccination rates;  
Assessments of the proposed amendments to the Immunization of  
School Pupils Act (ISPA); and  
The specifics of the education sessions under the proposed  
amendments to the ISPA. [emphasis in the original]  
[15] The ministry submits that it broadly interpreted the appellant’s request in order to  
ensure that its search captured all the records reasonably related to the request. Further,  
the ministry submits that it contacted the appellant to clarify her request including  
proposing that the term “vaccine hesitancy” be removed as that term is rarely used by  
the ministry. The ministry states:  
Any references to vaccine hesitancy that might be included in a record  
would be found in a search for the more commonly used phrase: ways to  
increase vaccination/immunization rates. The ministry’s suggestion was not  
an attempt to reduce the scope of the request; on the contrary, the purpose  
was to focus the search on the more common phrase. Nevertheless, since  
the appellant did not accept the ministry’s suggestion, the ministry did in  
3 Orders P-134 and P-880.  
4 Orders P-880 and PO-2661.  
- 7 -  
fact include the term vaccine hesitancy in its search even though it knew  
that few records would contain this term.  
[16] The ministry submits that the records that it identified as not responsive do not  
relate to the subject matters identified in the appellant’s request.  
[17] The appellant submits that because the ministry chose to divide her requests up  
into batches, the records it identified as not responsive may be responsive to other parts  
of her request but were never captured by the ministry’s search for responsive records  
when it responded to the other batches of her request. Instead, the appellant submits  
that the ministry would have identified the record as a duplicate instead of as reasonably  
relating to her request. The appellant provided specific examples where this occurred.  
The appellant asks that I review records 95, 163, 202, 230 and 246 to determine if they  
are not responsive to any of the eight items in her request bearing in mind that her  
request should be given a liberal interpretation and ambiguities decided in her favour.  
[18] The appellant also asked that I consider the fact that the ministry initially claimed  
that certain records were not responsive but then changed its decision and claimed either  
section 13 or 14(1)(i) for this information. The appellant provided specific examples which  
she submits is evidence of the ministry’s claim of non-responsiveness to prevent access  
to certain information.  
Analysis and finding  
[19] I have reviewed the partiesrepresentations and the records claimed not to be  
responsive by the ministry. For the reasons below, I find that the records and information  
identified by the ministry as non-responsive are not reasonably related to the appellant’s  
request.  
[20] In reaching this conclusion, I considered and agreed with the appellant’s  
submission that if the ministry identified information as not responsive, I should review  
their decision considering whether the information would be responsive to any of the  
parts of her request and not just those parts that are being dealt with in this batch of  
records.5  
[21] However, I also accept the ministry’s submission that the appellant’s request, not  
just those parts covered in this batch, was very specific and clear as to the information  
that she was seeking. The appellant was seeking particular information relating to records  
about immunization, including proposed amendments to ISPA. The appellant’s request  
further sets out the breadth of the records she sought. I find that there was little room  
in the appellant’s request for ambiguity in determining the records she is seeking.  
[22] I give little weight to the appellant’s argument that the ministry’s change in  
decision is evidence of bad faith in its claim of non-responsiveness. As noted by the  
5 I note that PA18-100 deals with Batch 3 of the records relating to the appellant’s request. That appeal is  
also currently before me.  
- 8 -  
ministry in its reply representations, a claim of non-responsiveness is a valid claim under  
the Act and not evidence of an attempt to thwart access.  
[23] Records 95, 163, 202, 230 and 246 do not relate to any of the eight parts of the  
appellant’s request. As these records are not responsive to the appellant’s request, I can  
not provide more detail about their contents. However, I confirm that these records are  
not responsive because they do not relate to immunization or vaccination and/or the  
proposed amendments to the ISPA. These records relate to other matters in the ministry’s  
jurisdiction as well as other public health issues.  
[24] Furthermore, I find that a liberal interpretation of the appellant’s request would  
not result in a finding that these records would be responsive to the appellant’s request.  
In reviewing these records, I reviewed all of the parts of the appellant’s request and the  
subject matter she was seeking. I confirm that these records do not reasonably relate to  
the appellant’s request and I uphold the ministry’s decision to withhold these records on  
the basis that they are not responsive.  
Issue B: Does the mandatory exemption at section 12(1) apply to the records?  
[25] The ministry submits that the following records, in part or in full, are exempt under  
section 12(1): 5, 6, 13, 14, 16-18, 20, 21, 26, 276, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 39, 46, 48, 67,  
68, 70, 96, 120, 129-131, 133-135, 138-143, 145-151, 154, 157, 158, 160-162, 1647,  
166-170, 173, 183, 184, 192, 193, 204, 205, 212, 216, 217, 227, 236, 239, 243-245, 251,  
254-257.  
[26] Section 12(1) protects certain records relating to meetings of Cabinet or its  
committees. It reads, in part:  
A head shall refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal  
the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or its committees,  
including,  
(a)  
an agenda, minute or other record of the deliberations  
or decisions of the Executive Council or its committees;  
(b)  
a record containing policy options or recommendations  
submitted, or prepared for submission, to the  
Executive Council or its committees;  
(f)  
draft legislation or regulations.  
[27] The Executive Council, which is more commonly known as Cabinet, is a council of  
6 During the inquiry, the ministry withdrew its claim for the slide deck that was attached to records 27 and  
164. As the emails for these records has not yet been disclosed, I will consider the application of section  
12 to the emails only.  
7 Ibid.  
- 9 -  
ministers of the Crown and is chaired by the Premier of Ontario.  
[28] Any record that would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive  
Council (Cabinet) or its committees qualifies for exemption under section 12(1), not just  
the types of records listed in paragraphs (a) to (f).8  
[29] A record never placed before Cabinet or its committees may also qualify for  
exemption, if its disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet or its  
committees, or would permit the drawing of accurate inferences about the deliberations.9  
[30] The institution must provide sufficient evidence to show a link between the content  
of the record and the actual substance of Cabinet deliberations.10  
Ministry’s representations  
[31] The ministry submits that the very nature of the appellant’s request is for Cabinet  
records as she specifically requested records that relate to the proposed amendments to  
the ISPA:  
All records which consider the strengths and weaknesses of proposed  
amendments to ISPA  
All records which discuss the details of education sessions proposed under  
said amendments to ISPA  
[32] The ministry explains that all proposed legislative amendments are submitted to  
Cabinet and the materials that accompany the proposed amendments contain discussions  
of policy options, recommendations and/or background explanations and analysis related  
to the amendments under consideration. Accordingly, the ministry submits that any  
records responsive to the appellant’s requests (set out above) would necessarily and  
inevitably reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations. The ministry goes on to explain  
that, in responding to the request, it searched for Cabinet records in particular because  
those records would contain the most relevant and responsive information about the  
proposed ISPA amendments that are of interest to the appellant.  
[33] For the records withheld in full under section 12(1), citing Orders P-22, P-1570  
and PO-2320, the ministry submits that under the introductory wording of section 12(1)  
any record that would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations qualifies for  
exemption. Further, the ministry submits that the record does not need to be placed  
before Cabinet or its committees to qualify for exemption if its disclosure would reveal  
the substance of deliberations of Cabinet or its committees or would permit the drawing  
of accurate inferences regarding the deliberations.  
[34] The ministry submits that all of the records for which it claims that section 12(1)  
8 Orders P-22, P-1570 and PO-2320.  
9 Orders P-361, PO-2320, PO-2554, PO-2666, PO-2707 and PO-2725.  
10 Order PO-2320.  
- 10 -  
applies reflect the substance and content of a Cabinet committee’s deliberations on the  
proposed amendments to the ISPA as they were all either submitted to, prepared for  
submission to, or used to develop submissions to Cabinet. In addition to the introductory  
wording of section 12, the ministry claims that sections 12(1)(a), (b) or (f) also apply to  
the records. The ministry states:  
Records 14, 131, 135, 158 and 236 contain Cabinet minutes. These records  
clearly fall within the exemption under section 12(1)(a), as well as the  
opening words of section 12(1).  
Records 5, 6, 16, 18, 20, 21, 46, 48, 67, 70, 120, 129, 130, 131, 138, 142,  
146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 157, 162, 167, 173, 204, 205, 216, 227 and 243  
contain recommendations and/or policy options developed for submission  
to Cabinet or its committees, as such they too are exempt under section  
12(1)(b) and the opening words of section 12(1).  
Many of the records contain discussions of the policies for which the ministry  
was seeking Cabinet’s approval, and include recommendations as well. For  
example, records 142, 146 and 147; the final versions of these records were  
included in a Cabinet submission.  
Records 14, 67, 216 and 227 fall squarely within 12(1)(f) as they contain  
draft legislative amendments to the ISPA.  
Some records, such as record 145, contain information that was used to  
develop submissions.  
[35] For the partial records that were withheld under section 12(1), the ministry submits  
that records 26, 36, 68, 133, 134, 148, 154, 168, 184 and 212 qualify for exemption  
under the introductory wording of section 12(1). The ministry notes that portions of  
these records relate to the Cabinet submission on amendments to the ISPA such that  
disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet or its committees.  
[36] The ministry was given an opportunity to respond to the appellant’s  
representations, which are summarized below. The ministry disputes that it was required  
to identify the specific paragraph of section 12(1) that applied to each of the withheld  
records where that exemption was claimed. Finally, the ministry addressed the mandatory  
exception in section 12(2)(b) to section 12. The ministry submits that section 12(2)(b)  
does not apply because:  
…The records withheld under section 12 were prepared for a Cabinet which  
no longer exists because of the change in government in June 2018.  
Consequently, the Ministry submits it has no discretion to disclose or  
consider seeking Cabinet’s consent to disclose these records.  
- 11 -  
Appellant’s representations  
[37] The appellant submits that in its access decisions to her, the ministry failed to  
provide a clear and helpful index of record setting out the specific paragraph for section  
12 that was being claimed for each record. The appellant argues:  
The ministry failed to provide extensive evidence with respect to each  
document for which it claimed a section 12 exemption. There was no  
affidavit explaining details, such as how each document would reveal the  
substance or Cabinet deliberations, in choosing to rely on broad, vague  
statements which fail to discuss specific records, the ministry failed to meet  
the burden of proving the exemptions.  
[38] The appellant believes that the ministry applied section 12 in an overly-broad  
manner and argues that a covering email or attachments of the records at issue may not  
be exempt under section 12 as their disclosure would not reveal the substance of  
deliberations and should be disclosed to her. The appellant submits that where  
documents were shared with people who are not government employees or were  
distributed outside the government to various stakeholders or were created by  
stakeholders these documents should not be exempt under section 12.  
[39] The appellant also disputes the ministry’s position that the very nature of her  
request meant that only Cabinet records would be identified as responsive. The appellant  
suggests that I consider whether the records at issue are actually exempt and not simply  
assume that the records are exempt under section 12.  
[40] The appellant also made specific representations regarding the application of the  
introductory wording of section 12(1), and sections 12(1)(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f). I have  
reviewed these representations but do not set them out here. Essentially, the appellant  
argues that I should consider whether the records could be severed to disclose  
information to her that would not reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations. The  
appellant also notes that for those records claimed exempt under sections 12(1)(c) and  
(e), once background information is used to develop a submission it can no longer be  
exempt once Cabinet renders a decision and the decision is implemented.  
[41] Lastly, the appellant submits that the ministry’s reasons for its decision not to seek  
Cabinet’s consent to disclose the records are not compelling.  
Analysis and findings  
[42] As I noted above, any record that would reveal the substance of deliberations of  
the Executive Council (Cabinet) or its committees qualifies for exemption under section  
12(1), not just the types of records listed in paragraphs (a) to (f). The ministry claims  
that some of the records are exempt under the introductory wording, while others are  
exempt under specific paragraphs (paragraphs (a), (b) and (f)). I disagree with the  
appellant that the ministry has not been clear in which parts of section 12 it has applied  
to the records.  
- 12 -  
[43] For section 12(1)(a), “agenda” means a specific record created as an official  
document of Cabinet Office that identifies the actual items to be considered at a particular  
meeting of Cabinet or one of its committees. An entry in a different record that describes  
the subject matter of an item considered or to be considered by Cabinet is not usually  
considered to be an agenda.  
[44] For a record to be exempt under section 12(1)(b), a record must contain policy  
options or recommendations, and must have been either submitted to Cabinet or its  
committees or at least prepared for that purpose. Such records remain exempt after  
Cabinet makes a decision.  
[45] For a record to be exempt under section 12(1)(f), the record must consist of draft  
legislation or regulations.  
[46] I have reviewed the parties’ submissions and the withheld records. For the reasons  
below, I find the records at issue are exempt under section 12(1), with the exception of  
records 27 and 164. For the appellant’s information, I have added a description of the  
withheld records in the index which is in the appendix to this order.  
[47] In order to meet the requirements of the introductory wording of section 12(1),  
the institution must provide sufficient evidence to establish a linkage between the content  
of the record at issue and the actual substance of Cabinet deliberations.11 Previous orders  
of this office have found that:  
deliberations refer to discussions conducted with a view towards  
making a decision;12 and  
substance generally means more than just the subject of the  
meeting.13  
[48] Based on my review of the records and the ministry’s representations, I find I have  
sufficient evidence to find that the introductory wording in section 12(1) applies to exempt  
records 13, 14, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 39, 68, 96, 133-135, 143, 145, 148, 154, 158,  
160-161, 166, 168-170, 183, 184, 192, 193, 212, 217, 236, 239, 244, 245, 251, 254-257  
from disclosure. Specifically, I find that the detailed nature of the email records, the  
nature and content of the attachments and the ministry’s representations all demonstrate  
that disclosure of the records would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet  
and/or its committees.  
[49] I also find that subsections (a), (b) and (f) of section 12(1) apply the records for  
which the ministry made such claims. Having reviewed the records, I make the following  
findings:  
Records 14, 131, 135, 158 and 236 all contain Cabinet minutes and  
are therefore exempt under section 12(1)(a).  
11 Order PO-2320.  
12 Order M-184.  
13 Orders M-703 and MO-1344.  
- 13 -  
Records 5, 6, 16, 18, 20, 21, 46, 48, 67, 70, 120, 129, 130, 131, 138,  
142, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 157, 162, 167, 173, 204, 205, 216,  
227 and 243 all contain policy options and recommendations for  
submission to Cabinet or its committees and are exempt under  
section 12(1)(b).  
Records 14, 216 and 227 all contain draft legislative amendments to  
the ISPA and are exempt under section 12(1)(f).  
[50] Regarding record 67, the ministry’s representations suggest that it contains draft  
legislation. It does not contain draft legislation but I accept that section 12(1)(b) applies  
to it because it contains recommendations developed for submission to the Legislation  
and Regulation Committee of Cabinet.  
[51] For the records withheld under the introductory wording of section 12(1), the  
ministry must provide sufficient evidence to show a link between the content of the record  
and the actual substance of Cabinet deliberations.14  
[52] The appellant does not dispute that there were proposed amendments to be made  
to the ISPA and that the content of the records at issue may relate to these amendments.  
The appellant submits that the ministry did not provide sufficient information about the  
records and evidence to establish the application of the introductory wording of section  
12(1). I agree with the appellant that the ministry’s representations do not provide  
detailed descriptions or summaries of the records, and the deliberations of Cabinet or its  
committees that would be disclosed if the records were found not to be exempt. However,  
in the circumstances of this appeal, the records themselves provide sufficient evidence to  
establish the necessary link with actual substance of Cabinet deliberations.  
[53] As stated above, the records are emails with attachments and I have reviewed  
them. The emails contain detailed discussions which describe:  
The Cabinet or committee meeting that was being prepared for  
including questions raised by Cabinet Office, the Minister of Health  
or staff members about the proposed amendments.  
Back and forth discussions about the documents that needed to be  
reviewed or prepared for Cabinet and committee meetings.  
Discussions about changes required to be made to documents  
relating to aspects of the proposed amendments as a result of the  
deliberations at Cabinet or committee meetings.  
Feedback from the Ministry of Education about the proposed  
amendments and the changes required to be made to Cabinet  
submissions.  
[54] Considering the content and the subject matter of the emails and their  
attachments, and the context in which they were prepared, it is evident to me that  
disclosure of them would disclose the actual substance of deliberations of Cabinet or its  
14 Order PO-2320.  
- 14 -  
committees and its committees or permit the accurate inference of the substance of the  
deliberations. As stated, the government at the time was considering amendments to the  
ISPA. Any such amendments would have required Cabinet approval. In the  
circumstances, and given the timing of the creation of the records at issue, I have no  
difficulty concluding that their disclosure would reveal the substances of Cabinet’s  
deliberations about the proposed amendments.  
[55] The appellant also argues that the ministry applied the section 12(1) exemption  
too broadly and may have applied it to records that would not disclose the substance of  
deliberations of Cabinet or its committees. She also states that some of the records were  
shared outside of government. I observe that, depending on the context, records shared  
outside of government may still reveal the substance of Cabinet’s deliberations. However,  
in any event, and in order to address the appellant’s concern, I observe that the emails  
were not sent or received by individuals outside the government. The emails do not  
include stakeholder information or submissions. The emails are all amongst ministry staff,  
Ministry of Education staff, and Cabinet Office staff.  
[56] As stated above, I find that records 27 and 164 are not exempt under the  
introductory wording of section 12(1) or any of its paragraphs. Records 27 and 164  
consist of emails and an attached slide deck. The attached slide deck has been disclosed  
to the appellant and I am unable to find that disclosure of the email would disclose the  
actual substance of deliberation of Cabinet or its committees. Nor am I able to find that  
disclosure of these emails would permit the inference of the substance of such  
deliberations. As these emails are not exempt under section 12(1), and the ministry has  
not claimed any discretionary exemptions for them nor do any mandatory exemptions  
apply, I will order the ministry to disclose these emails to the appellant.  
[57] I have reviewed the exceptions to section 12(1) in section 12(2) and find that  
neither apply. Only section 12(2)(b) may possibly apply; it states:  
Despite subsection (1), a head shall not refuse under subsection (1) to  
disclose a record where,  
(b) the Executive Council for which, or in respect of which,  
the record has been prepared consents to access being given.  
[58] The head of an institution is not required under section 12(2)(b) to seek the  
consent of Cabinet to release the record. However, the head must at least turn their mind  
to it.15  
[59] Only the Cabinet in respect of which the record was prepared can consent to the  
disclosure of the record.16  
[60] While the appellant takes issue with the ministry’s reasons for not seeking consent,  
15 Orders P-771, P-1146 and PO-2554.  
16 Order PO-2422.  
- 15 -  
I accept that given the fact that the records withheld under section 12(1) were prepared  
for a Cabinet which no longer exists, the ministry decided that it would not endeavour to  
seek the former Cabinet’s consent to disclose the records at issue. I accept that the  
ministry turned its mind to Cabinet consent.  
[61] Lastly, the appellant also asks that I consider whether the records could be  
severed under section 10(2) of the Act to disclose any information to her that is not  
exempt under section 12(1). I have considered whether the records could be severed  
and find that they cannot. The records contain only information that is exempt under  
section 12(1).  
Issue C: Does the discretionary exemption at section 13(1) apply to the  
records?  
[62] The ministry submits that record 200 is exempt, in full, under section 13(1) and  
that records 68, 122, 123, 126, 128, 144, 152, 155, 156, 210, 211 and 214 are exempt,  
in part, under section 13(1). Section 13(1) of the Act states:  
A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal  
advice or recommendations of a public servant, any other person employed  
in the service of an institution or a consultant retained by an institution.  
[63] Section 13(1) of the Act exempts certain records containing advice or  
recommendations given to an institution. This exemption aims to preserve an effective  
and neutral public service by ensuring that people employed or retained by institutions  
are able to freely and frankly advise and make recommendations within the deliberative  
process of government decision-making and policy-making.17  
[64] Section 13(1) applies if disclosure would “reveal” advice or recommendations,  
either because the information itself consists of advice or recommendations or the  
information, if disclosed, would permit the drawing of accurate inferences as to the nature  
of the actual advice or recommendations.  
[65] The relevant time for assessing the application of section 13(1) is the point when  
the public servant or consultant prepared the advice or recommendations. The institution  
does not have to prove that the public servant or consultant actually communicated the  
advice or recommendations. Section 13(1) can also apply if there is no evidence of an  
intention to communicate, since that intention is inherent to the job of policy  
development, whether by a public servant or consultant.  
Representations  
[66] The ministry submits that in John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), cited below, the  
Supreme Court of Canada held that advice and recommendations have distinct meanings.  
Recommendations, which can be expressed or inferred, refer to material that relates to  
17 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), 2014 SCC 36, at para. 43.  
- 16 -  
a suggested course of action for the ministry to accept or reject. The Supreme Court of  
Canada held that advice under section 13(1) has a broader meaning than  
recommendations. Advice involves an evaluative analysis of information. Advice includes  
policy options, which are lists of alternative courses of action, and the view or opinions  
of a public servant relating to the policy options. The record does not need to be  
communicated in order for section 13(1) to apply.  
[67] Further, the ministry notes that this office has adopted the analysis from John Doe  
in Orders PO-3365, PO-3734 and PO-3496. The ministry submits that according to  
Reconsideration Order PO-3470-R, the Supreme Court of Canada’s holding has changed  
how the IPC applies and interprets the section 13(1) exemption. This is set out in  
paragraphs 57 and 58 above.  
[68] Finally, the ministry submits that advice also includes information on how the  
institution “should view a matter” and “the parameters within which a decision should be  
made” as discussed in John Doe and reiterated in Order PO-3734.  
[69] Regarding the specific records for which section 13(1) is claimed, the ministry  
states the following:  
Record 200 is an email in which recommendations regarding the  
proposed amendments to the ISPA are discussed. The entire email  
relates to the recommendations, such that disclosure of any part of  
the email would reveal the content of the recommendations.  
Record 68 includes a number of attachments. The portions  
containing analyses of policy options fall squarely under section  
13(1) based on the John Doe decision.  
The severed portions of records 122, 123, 128, 144 and 152 contain  
advice of ministry staff. The finalized versions of these records were  
disclosed in record 168.  
Portions of records 126, 155 and 156 were severed because they  
contain advice as well as detailed analyses of policy options.  
The severed portion on pages 1 and 7 of record 210 would, if  
disclosed, reveal a recommendation. The same information was  
severed from records 211 and 214.  
[70] The ministry states that since the severed portions of the records contain views,  
opinions, and analyses of various policy options they fall within the ambit of advice under  
section 13(1) as described in John Doe. And the disclosure of this information would  
reveal or permit the drawing of accurate inferences regarding the advice and/or  
recommendation given by staff.  
[71] The ministry submits that none of the mandatory exceptions in section 13(2) apply  
to the withheld information as the records do not contain any of the specified type of  
information listed in section 13(2). The ministry notes that while some of the severed  
portions contain factual information, that information is linked to the advice and/or  
recommendation being provided. In Order PO-2097, the ministry notes that the IPC found  
- 17 -  
the following and this applies to the withheld information in the present appeal:  
…the factual information relied upon by the reviewers is inextricably  
intertwined with the advice and recommendations being provided to the  
ministry…it is not possible to separate the factual information from the  
advice and recommendations…and [therefore] the exception in section  
13(2)(a) has no application to it.”  
[72] The appellant submits that there are a number of types of information that have  
been found by this office to not qualify as advice or recommendation under section 13(1)  
including:  
Factual or background information  
Analytical information  
Evaluative information  
Notification or cautions  
Views  
Draft documents  
A supervisor’s direction to staff on how to conduct an investigation18  
[73] The appellant submits that it is highly unlikely that all of record 200 which the  
ministry claimed is fully exempt under section 13(1) contains advice or recommendation.  
The appellant submits that it more likely that only a portion of record 200 is exempt under  
section 13(1) and the remaining parts may include factual information which is excepted  
from the exemption in section 13(2)(a).  
[74] With respect to the records 68, 122, 123, 126, 128, 144, 152, 155, 156, 210, 211  
and 214 which were withheld in part, appellant submits that it is her belief that the  
ministry applied the section 13(1) exemptions broadly and even the withheld parts of  
these records do not contain advice or recommendations. The appellant notes that while  
the ministry submits that there are instances where it may not be possible to separate  
the factual information from the advice or recommendation, she notes that the ministry  
did not point to a specific example. The appellant also submits that the ministry did not  
discuss the possible application of the other exceptions in section 13(2) and asks I  
consider their possible application to the withheld information.  
[75] Lastly, the appellant submits that I should carefully consider whether the ministry’s  
claim of section 13(1) to withhold information in records 210, 211 and 214 is legitimate  
since it had initially claimed this information was not responsive to the request. The  
appellant notes that the withheld not-responsive information was clearly responsive and  
she submits that the ministry may be trying to shield the information in these records  
from disclosure by claiming the application of the section 13(1) exemption.  
18 Order P-434; Order PO-1993, Order PO-2115, Order P-363, upheld on judicial review in Ontario (Human  
Rights Commission) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner) (March 25, 1994), Toronto Doc.  
721/92 (Ont. Div. Ct.).  
- 18 -  
Analysis and finding  
[76] Based on my review of the parties’ representations and the records themselves, I  
find that section 13(1) applies to the withheld information.  
[77] For records 68, 122, 123, 126, 128, 144, 152, 155, 156, 210, 211 and 21419 which  
were withheld in part, I find that the withheld information consists of the following:  
Record 68 A list of options and a detailed discussion of their details  
and considerations.  
Record 122 A draft document with comments and an email chain  
containing a discussion about the draft document.  
Record 123 A draft document with comments and an email chain  
regarding the draft document, circulated for comment and approval.  
Record 126 A draft briefing note with attached chart containing list  
of options and proposed actions circulated for comment and  
approval.  
Record 128 A draft document with comments circulated for  
comment and approval  
Record 144 A draft document with comments circulated for  
comment and approval.  
Record 152 A draft document with comments circulated for review.  
Record 155 A draft document with comments including chart with  
list of options and proposed actions. Email contains questions from  
the Minister.  
Record 156 A draft document with comments including chart with  
list of options and proposed actions.  
Record 210 A draft version of a document containing edits  
circulated for review and signature.  
Record 211 A draft version of a document containing edits  
circulated for review.  
Record 214 A final version of a document with email containing  
suggested course of action regarding the document.  
[78] Record 200 is an email chain amongst staff at the ministry containing advice  
regarding vaccine requirements.  
[79] I find that disclosure of all of these records would reveal the advice or  
recommendation sought or given by staff at the ministry regarding the vaccine  
requirements and the ISPA amendments. All of the records at issue are emails with  
attached documents. In each case, the emails expressly refer to the attached documents  
and contain recommendations and discussion about the substance of the draft attached  
19 The ministry’s representations refer to a Record 215 but the ministry’s index notes that Record 215 was  
disclosed in full. The ministry’s index also refers to Record 214 which was withheld under section 13(1). I  
have considered whether Record 214 was exempt under section 13(1).  
- 19 -  
documents. I find that all of the records are exempt under section 13(1) of the Act.  
[80] Given the nature of the records at issue, emails with attached documents, I also  
considered whether any of the pages of the records or emails could be severed or would  
be subject to the mandatory exceptions to section 13(1) set out in section 13(2). In  
particular, I considered whether there was factual information in the records that would  
be excepted from exemption under section 13(2)(a). Based on my review of all of the  
withheld information, I find that the factual information in the records is inextricably  
intertwined with the advice and/or recommendation such that I am unable to find that  
the exception in section 13(2)(a) applies. Furthermore, because the factual information  
and the advice and/or recommendations are intertwined, I am unable to find that the  
records can be severed in such a way to disclose information to the appellant.  
[81] Accordingly, I find section 13(1) applies to the records for which it was claimed  
and I will consider the ministry’s exercise of discretion below.  
Issue D: Does the discretionary exemption at section 14(1)(i) for security  
apply to records 185, 189, 191, and 195?  
[82] The ministry submits that section 14(1)(i) applies to part of record 195. Record  
195 is an email with an attached document that is approximately 230 pages including the  
appendix.  
[83] Also, the ministry’s index indicates that teleconference information in records 185,  
189, and 191 was withheld under section 14(1)(i).  
[84] Section 14(1)(i) states:  
A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure could  
reasonably be expected to,  
endanger the security of a building or the security of a vehicle  
carrying items, or of a system or procedure established for  
the protection of items, for which protection is reasonably  
required  
[85] The parties resisting disclosure of a record cannot simply assert that the harms  
under section 14 are obvious based on the record. They must provide detailed evidence  
about the risk of harm if the record is disclosed. While harm can sometimes be inferred  
from the records themselves and/or the surrounding circumstances, parties should not  
assume that the harms under section 14 are self-evident and can be proven simply by  
repeating the description of harms in the Act.20  
[86] Parties resisting disclosure must show that the risk of harm is real and not just a  
possibility.21 However, they do not have to prove that disclosure will in fact result in harm.  
20 Orders MO-2363 and PO-2435.  
21 Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), [2012] 1 S.C.R. 23.  
- 20 -  
How much and what kind of evidence is needed to establish the harm depends on the  
context of the request and the seriousness of the consequences of disclosing the  
information.22  
[87] Although the section 14(1)(i) provision is found in the section of the Act dealing  
specifically with law enforcement matters, it is not restricted to law enforcement  
situations and can cover any building, vehicle or system which requires protection.23  
Representations  
[88] The ministry submits that record 195 contains detailed descriptions and  
instructions on how to perform data entry in a data management program called  
Panorama. The ministry explains that Panorama is a closed system not available to the  
public and the disclosure of record 195 could reasonably be expected to endanger the  
security and integrity of the system or the ministry’s procedures established for the  
protection of personal health information related to immunization held within the  
Panorama system.  
[89] The ministry cites Order PO-2391 in support of its position that the IPC has found  
that information pertaining to computer and operating systems can qualify for exemption  
under section 14(1)(i). In Order PO-2391, the IPC found that disclosure of the responsive  
records relating to a request for manuals, procedures, guides and directives relating to  
the Registrar General’s computer system could reasonably be expected to endanger the  
security of the Office of the Registrar’s computer systems and/or operational procedures.  
The ministry notes:  
Because the system protected a broad range of personal information  
collected under the Vital Statistics Act, the IPC was satisfied that protection  
of this information is reasonably required to prevent tampering and  
unauthorized modification and that disclosure of detailed technical  
information about the workings of the system or procedure established for  
the protection of information could be expected to lead to harms pursuant  
to section 14(1)(i).  
[90] The ministry submits that the same rationale applies to the protection of record  
195 and protection of the information in the record is necessary to safeguard the personal  
health information contained in the system. The ministry submits that disclosure of record  
195 could result in knowledgeable persons using the technical information in the record  
to manipulate and undermine the integrity of Panorama, thereby disrupting the system’s  
ability to conduct population surveillance for vaccine preventable diseases. The ministry  
submits that it would also threaten the security of the personal health information  
contained in Panorama. The ministry states:  
22Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy  
Commissioner), 2014 SCC 31 () at paras. 52-4; Accenture Inc. v. Ontario (Information and Privacy  
Commissioner), 2016 ONSC 1616.  
23 Orders P-900 and PO-2461.  
- 21 -  
If knowledgeable individuals gain access to record 195 once it is disclosed  
to the appellant, they could use the information in the record to target  
specific data through electronic sabotage or computer attack, thereby  
undermining the Panorama system. In addition, if the system is successfully  
infiltrated, a person could use the information in record 195 to learn how  
to access an individual’s personal health information relating to their  
immunization history, thereby undermining the public health unit’s ability to  
protect this personal health information from unauthorized access, as they  
are required to do under the Personal Health Information Protection Act,  
2004 (PHIPA).  
[91] Finally, the ministry argues that disclosure of record 195 could reasonably be  
expected to also undermine the functionality of Panorama. The ministry notes that it is  
important to maintain the integrity of the data in Panorama as inaccurate data would  
disrupt its ability to perform population surveillance for vaccine preventable diseases. In  
addition, any manipulation of system or its data could interfere with public health units’  
ability to correctly assess who is at risk for contracting vaccine preventable diseases and  
to hold mass immunization clinics.  
[92] The appellant submits that if record 195 is exempt under section 14(1)(i) then she  
would expect it to contain actual information about how to log into Panorama including  
passwords and URLs. The appellant states, “I submit that just because entry-points to  
Panorama may be worthy of protection, does not mean that information about how to  
enter certain immunization data into the system is something covered by section  
14(1)(i).”  
[93] The appellant submits that she does not believe that record 195 contains  
information about how to hack into Panorama or how to gain access to the system.  
Therefore, she notes that even if Panorama is a system that holds personal health  
records, it does not mean that any document that mentions Panorama or the data that it  
holds should be exempt under section 14(1)(i). The appellant further argues that the  
scenario set out in the ministry’s representations about the possible harm on disclosure  
of the information is speculative and the ministry has failed to explain what information  
in record 195 could make it easier for individuals to infiltrate the Panorama system.  
[94] Finally, the appellant submits that because the ministry initially identified  
information in record 195 as not responsive and then later identified the information as  
responsive but exempt under section 14(1)(i), the ministry’s claim of the exemption is  
suspect and should be scrutinized carefully. The appellant submits that I should carefully  
consider whether the withheld information in record 195 could be severed to disclose to  
her any information that is not exempt under section 14(1)(i).  
Analysis and finding  
[95] I find that pages 2 236 of record 195 are exempt under section 14(1)(i). While  
the ministry submits that these withheld pages contain standards and best practices for  
data entry in Panorama, I would more accurately describe these withheld pages as a  
- 22 -  
manual on how to use and access Panorama.  
[96] I find pages 2 236 contain detailed descriptions and instructions on how to access  
and use Panorama. Many of the withheld pages include screen shots of the actual system  
and how data would appear in the system including an explanation of the type of data to  
be entered into specific fields. Based on the highly-specific and technical nature of the  
withheld information, I accept the ministry’s submission that disclosure of the withheld  
information could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of the Panorama  
system and its procedures. Furthermore, I accept that the data to be protected –  
immunization information relating to various public health units, is information where  
protection is reasonably required.  
[97] I sympathize with the appellant’s scepticism of the ministry’s claim of section  
14(1)(i) for the hundreds of withheld pages. However, given the level of technical  
information and the specific detail of instructions and screen shots of the Panorama  
system, I find that the ministry’s claim of section 14(1)(i) for record 195 to be reasonable.  
[98] Finally, I considered whether any of pages 2 236 could be severed to disclose  
information to the appellant. I note for the appellant’s benefit that the instructions and  
specifications contained in record 195 do not relate to immunization only but contains  
information about how to correctly enter and record data relating to individuals. Based  
on my review of the withheld information, I find that it is all exempt under section 14(1)(i)  
and cannot be severed.  
[99] The ministry also claimed that section 14(1)(i) applies to the withheld  
teleconference information in records 185, 189 and 191. The ministry’s representations  
do not address the possible harm that could reasonably be expected to occur if this  
information is disclosed. Based on my review of the records, it is not clear to me that  
disclosure of the teleconference code information could reasonably be expected to  
endanger the security of a system or procedure established for the protection of items,  
for which protection is reasonably required. Accordingly, I find section 14(1)(i) does not  
apply to the withheld information on these records and will order them disclosed.  
[100] Accordingly, as I have found pages 2 236 of record 195 exempt under section  
14(1)(i), I will proceed to consider the ministry’s exercise of discretion in claiming this  
exemption below.  
Issue E: Did the ministry properly exercise its discretion in claiming sections  
13(1) and 14(1)(i)?  
[101] The section 13(1) and 14(1)(i) exemptions are discretionary, and permit an  
institution to disclose information, despite the fact that it could withhold it. An institution  
must exercise its discretion. On appeal, the Commissioner may determine whether the  
institution failed to do so.  
[102] In addition, the Commissioner 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  
- 23 -  
into account irrelevant considerations; or, it fails to take into account relevant  
considerations. In any of these cases, the IPC may send the matter back to the institution  
for an exercise of discretion based on proper considerations.24 This office may not,  
however, substitute its own discretion for that of the institution.25  
Representations  
[103] The ministry submits that it properly exercised its discretion in claiming sections  
13(1) and 14(1)(i) to withhold the records at issue. In exercising its discretion to claim  
section 13(1), the ministry submits that it considered:  
The importance of protecting the free, full, and frank review of all  
policy options and related considerations by ministry staff  
The ministry only severed one record in full based on the exemption  
Finalized copies of a number of severed records were provided to the  
appellant.  
[104] In exercising its discretion to claim section 14(1)(i), the ministry submits that it  
considered:  
The importance of protection personal health information  
Public interest in maintaining the integrity of the data stored in  
Panorama, considering the system is used to assess who may be at  
risk for contracting vaccine preventable diseases  
The ministry consistently treats technical records as confidential.  
[105] The appellant submits that the ministry has failed to demonstrate that it properly  
exercised its discretion in withholding the records at issue under sections 13(1) and  
14(1)(i). The appellant submits that the ministry did not provide evidence of its exercise  
of discretion nor did it provide an affidavit of its head regarding the factors considered in  
exercising its discretion.  
[106] The appellant submits that it is evident to her that the ministry used an extremely  
broad interpretation of the exemptions when applying the exemptions. The appellant  
submits that this is demonstrated in the ministry’s representations and “…shown by the  
unusual interpretation suggested for section 14(1)(i).”  
[107] The appellant states that the ministry only weighed considerations that favour  
keeping information sheltered rather than those factors favouring disclosure. She submits  
that the ministry failed to consider the following factors:  
The values behind access legislation and the importance of making  
information available to the public, such as a citizen’s right to access  
to information created and obtained at taxpayer’s expense, and the  
need to hold government accountable;  
24 Order MO-1573.  
25 Section 54(2).  
- 24 -  
The right to access with respect to legislative amendments to the  
ISPA. These amendments impact the right to education. They also  
place limits on freedom of religion and conscience by imposing limits  
on the right to claim conscientious and religious exemptions; and  
The fact that, by the time access decisions were made, the proposed  
amendments have been made and implemented and the information  
lost at least some of its sensitive nature.  
Analysis and finding  
[108] I find the ministry properly exercised its discretion in claiming section 13(1) and  
14(1)(i) to withhold the records at issue. I find the ministry did not exercise its discretion  
in bad faith or that it improperly exercised its discretion in failing to consider those  
considerations set out in the appellant’s representations.  
[109] While I am sympathetic to the appellant’s argument that it is her belief that the  
ministry broadly interpreted the claimed exemptions and this resulted in a large number  
of records being withheld from her, I wish to emphasize that the Act also recognizes that  
necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific. There is  
nothing improper about the ministry claiming exemptions that it has decided should apply  
to the records at issue. Furthermore, I have reviewed the records and the claimed  
exemptions and find that the exemptions were applied in a limited and specific manner  
given the nature of the withheld information.  
[110] Accordingly, I uphold the ministry’s exercise of discretion.  
Issue F: Is there a compelling public interest in disclosure of the records that  
clearly outweighs the purpose of the section 13(1) exemption?  
[111] The appellant submits that there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of the  
records that clearly outweighs the purpose of the section 13(1) exemption. Section 23 of  
the Act states:  
An exemption from disclosure of a record under sections 13, 15, 17, 18, 20,  
21 and 21.1 does not apply where a compelling public interest in the  
disclosure of the record clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemption.  
[112] For section 23 to apply, two requirements must be met. First, there must be a  
compelling public interest in disclosure of the records. Second, this interest must clearly  
outweigh the purpose of the exemption.  
[113] The Act is silent as to who bears the burden of proof in respect of section 23. This  
onus cannot be absolute in the case of the appellant because the appellant has not had  
the benefit of reviewing the records before making her submissions in support of her  
position that section 23 applies. Accordingly, I will consider whether there could be a  
compelling public interest in disclosure of the records which clearly outweighs the purpose  
- 25 -  
of the section 13(1) exemption.26  
Representations  
[114] The appellant submits that the ministry must bear the burden of proving that there  
is not a compelling public interest in disclosure of the records at issue. To that end, the  
appellant submits that her access request demonstrates the purpose she sought the  
records which was why the government chose to propose the legislation. The appellant  
states:  
I asked to know what other options the government has considered. I asked  
to know about the legal implications of the proposed legislation, including  
Charter and Human Rights implications and asked about stakeholders’  
involvement and input in the process. I also asked to learn about the cost  
and other details.  
[115] The appellant submits that she believes it is in the public interest to get as much  
information as possible about the issues identified in her request because, she states:  
The legislation affects health and the right to attend schools. The legislation  
shows what the government’s priorities are. I believe that there is a  
compelling public interest in learning why the government chose to address  
this particular issue and not other pressing public health issues, such as, for  
example, driving under the influence issues, distracted-driving or the  
growing number of children with life-threatening food allergies.  
[116] The appellant submits that the public has a compelling interest in learning about  
government priorities and spending. The public has a right to learn as much as possible  
about government’s spending of taxpayer’s money. The appellant submits that it is her  
belief that some of the withheld information in records 210, 211 and 214 relate to the  
cost of the proposed amendments.  
[117] The ministry submits that there is no compelling public interest in disclosure of the  
information it has withheld under section 13(1). The ministry acknowledges that there is  
public interest in vaccinations and more particularly their safety. The ministry submits  
that the specific information withheld under section 13(1) would not be the information  
that would address the public interest in vaccinations. Furthermore, the withheld  
information wold not “inform the citizenry about the activities of their government or its  
agencies” or add to the information the public “has to make effective use of the means  
of expressing public opinion or to make political choices.”  
[118] The ministry submits that a significant amount of information has already been  
disclosed, specifically, the finalized media products on Immunization 2020 were released  
to the public. The ministry notes that the draft media products would not better inform  
the public about activities of government; all of the relevant information from the drafts  
26 Order P-244.  
- 26 -  
is in the finalized version.  
Analysis and Finding  
[119] In considering whether there is a public interest in disclosure of the record, the  
first question to ask is whether there is a relationship between the record and the Act’s  
central purpose of shedding light on the operations of government.27 Previous orders  
have stated that in order to find a compelling public interest in disclosure, the information  
in the record must serve the purpose of informing or enlightening the citizenry about the  
activities of their government or its agencies, adding in some way to the information the  
public has to make effective use of the means of expressing public opinion or to make  
political choices.28  
[120] Based on my review of the information withheld under section 13(1) and the  
parties’ representations, I find that section 23 does not apply. I accept the appellant and  
the ministry’s position that there is a public interest in vaccines and immunization policies  
undertaken by the government. I further accept the appellant’s position that there is a  
public interest in the government’s decision to pursue immunization policies over other  
public health concerns. I accept that the choice of the government to pursue one policy  
over another is an issue of accountability for the citizens in this province. However, I find  
that the public interests identified by the appellant are not compelling and the appellant  
has not established that the public interests she has identified are those that rouse strong  
interest or attention.29  
[121] However, even if I found there was a compelling public interest, I agree with the  
ministry’s position that the information withheld under section 13(1) would not serve the  
purpose of shedding light on the public interest identified by the appellant. The  
information withheld under section 13(1), relates to the comments and advice of ministry  
staff regarding draft documents. I find that disclosure of the withheld information would  
not serve the purpose of enlightening the appellant on the government’s decision to  
pursue immunization policies over other public health matters.  
[122] Accordingly, I find that section 23 does not apply to the information withheld under  
section 13(1).  
Issue G: Did the ministry conduct a reasonable search for records?  
[123] Where the appellant 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 24.30  
[124] A reasonable search is one in which an experienced employee knowledgeable in  
the subject matter of the request makes a reasonable effort to locate records that are  
27 Orders P-984 and PO-2607.  
28 Orders P-984 and PO-2556.  
29 Order P-984.  
30 Orders P-85, P-221 and PO-1954-I.  
- 27 -  
reasonably related to the request.31 The IPC will order a further search if the institution  
does not provide enough evidence to show that it has made a reasonable effort to identify  
and locate all of the responsive records within its custody or control.32  
[125] The Act does not require the institution to prove with certainty that further records  
do not exist. However, the institution must provide enough evidence to show that it has  
made a reasonable effort to identify and locate responsive records;33 that is, records that  
are "reasonably related” to the request.34  
[126] Although a requester will rarely be in a position to indicate precisely which records  
the institution has not identified, they still must provide a reasonable basis for concluding  
that such records exist.35  
The ministry’s representations  
[127] The ministry provided representations in support of its search.  
[128] The ministry submits that it searched multiple holdings including network shared  
drives, Microsoft Outlook e-mail folders, and physical hard copy files. Due to the batching  
of the appellant’s requests, records were separated into three categories and identified  
as responsive to one of the three batches. The ministry submits that many of the records  
were responsive to more than one of the requests.  
[129] The ministry states that for electronic records, searches were conducting using the  
following broad search terms. The ministry notes that its search terms were not limited  
to the following:  
Immunization [*][?]  
“Immunization of School Pupils Act”  
“ISPA”  
Immunization rate[s]  
Ontario immunization rate[s]  
Vaccination coverage rate[s]  
Reduce vaccine hesitancy  
Vaccine hesitan[*][?]  
Strength AND “ISPA”  
Weakness AND “ISPA”  
ISPA amendment[s]  
ISPA education[?]  
Education session[*][?]  
Education module[*][?]  
31 Orders M-909, PO-2469 and PO-2592.  
32 Order MO-2185.  
33 Orders P-624 and PO-2559.  
34 Order PO-2554.  
35 Order MO-2246.  
- 28 -  
“Public health unit” education module AND vaccine[*][?]  
[130] The ministry clarified that where appropriate, wildcard searches were used for  
Shared Drive searches in Windows Explorer (e.g. immuniz? And immuniz*). And where  
appropriate, partial string searches were used for MS Outlook searches under the Field,  
Condition, and Value tabs (e.g. including ISPA under the Value heading).  
[131] The ministry submits that the Assistant Deputy Minister’s office identified the  
following program areas and staff whose records were searched for responsive records:  
Director, Health Protection and Surveillance Policy and Programs  
Branch (HPSPPB)  
Manager, Assistant Deputy Minister’s Office, HPSPPB, Population and  
Public Health Division  
Immunization Policy and Programs Unit  
o
Senior Program/Policy Advisor  
o
Senior Nurse Consultant (three staff members)  
The appellant’s representations  
[132] The appellant submits that she was not contacted to clarify her request and while  
the ministry made two suggestions to narrow the request, she did not accept those  
suggestions. The appellant states that the ministry interpreted her request literally and  
partially and that there were certain deficiencies in search terms and the staff members  
whose record holdings were searched.  
[133] Regarding item 1 in this batch of her request, the appellant submits that the  
ministry responded literally and states:  
For example, the first issue covered by batch 00081 is my request for  
records which discuss “solutions employed by or considered by other  
jurisdictions” to increase immunization rates or reduce hesitancy. I know  
that, prior to choosing a solution such as the Education Session, the  
Government typically conducts research into solutions employed by other  
jurisdictions. I assume that, prior to choosing the Education Session  
solution, the ministry had researched solutions in other Canadian provinces,  
in various U.S. states and in other western countries. I expected to see  
records that discuss rules in other Canadian provinces. I also expected to  
find records discussion the details of solutions employed by the state of  
Oregon and the state of Washington (States that have their own education  
session) Mississippi, California, West Virginia (states that have stringent  
immunization exemptions), New York and Australia, to name a few. The  
ministry knows what jurisdictions it has researched in preparation for ISPA  
amendments and should have been able to search the specific names of all  
the jurisdictions (provinces, states and countries) that it had looked into.  
[134] The appellant suggests the following searches that should have been used to  
- 29 -  
locate the information she was looking for:  
A search that combines the term “education session” and names of  
specific jurisdictions (Oregon, Washington, New York, etc.) which the  
Assistant Deputy Minister and/or her senior staff knew that they  
researched.  
Also a search that combines names of specific jurisdictions  
researched together with terms re “increase vaccination” or  
“increase immunization” or “reduce hesitancy”  
[135] The appellant submits that these searches were not conducted and notes that the  
records she received included very few references to some of these jurisdictions. The  
appellant submits she was looking to get records containing a detailed discussion and  
comparison but these records were not provided. The appellant submits that given the  
way the ministry conducted its searches she is not surprised that responsive records were  
not located.  
[136] The appellant submits that when she asked for records “which consider the  
strengths and weaknesses of proposed amendments to ISPA”, the ministry should have  
included the following phrase strengths or weaknesses together with a term that relates  
to reporting to the medical health officer (or to Public Health). The appellant submits that  
in not including any terms that discuss this issue, the ministry unilaterally narrowed the  
scope of her request.  
[137] The appellant submits that the search terms used by the ministry to conduct its  
computer searches was deficient and states:  
It appears that the terms immunization and vaccination were not  
used interchangeably. For example, there was a search of  
“vaccination coverage rates” but no equivalent search of  
“immunization coverage rates”. (only Ontario immunization rates  
was search[ed])  
It does not appear that a search for increase and vaccination rates  
was conducted. Only a search for “reduce vaccine hesitancy” was  
performed.  
I would expect the search of the root-word: immuniz* and vaccine*  
(instead of only immunization)  
Also would expect to see search terms re “Bill 87”, “Bill 198”.  
[138] The appellant notes that only the record holdings of six staff members were  
searched and others should have been asked to search their records as well other  
individuals noted in records the appellant received. The appellant submits that because  
the ministry did not provide its representations by affidavit (something requested in the  
Notice of Inquiry) it has failed to establish that it conducted a reasonable search.  
- 30 -  
The reply and sur-reply representations  
[139] In reply to the appellant’s representations, the ministry submits that instead of  
interpreting the appellant’s request “too literally” it conducted a search based on the  
actual wording of her request as it is required to do.  
[140] Regarding the “jurisdictional scan records”, the ministry states:  
…the appellant is suggesting the ministry’s jurisdictional research, rather  
than its search for records, was inadequate. The ministry submits that it is  
not required to explain why it relied on certain records to inform its decision  
to amend the ISPA, and the appellant’s “assumptions” and “expectations”  
about what records/information should have been considered are not a valid  
basis for arguing that our search was not reasonable.  
[141] The ministry also submits that it did locate records responsive to this aspect of the  
appellant’s request (i.e. “records which discuss solutions employed or considered by other  
jurisdictions in order to increase immunization/vaccine coverage”) but those records were  
submitted to Cabinet as they formed part of the Cabinet submission that accompanied  
the proposed amendments to the ISPA. Consequently, they were not disclosed to the  
appellant under section 12(1) of the Act.  
[142] The ministry submits that regarding the search terms set out by the appellant in  
her representations, they rely on their earlier submissions regarding the search terms  
they used.  
[143] The appellant was given a final opportunity to respond to the ministry. The  
appellant states:  
…the ministry admits that it has records discussing solutions employed by  
other jurisdictions but somehow these records discussing other jurisdictions  
“formed part of the Cabinet submission.” Is there truly no independent  
report that simply reviews the results of research into solutions by other  
jurisdictions. Are there no records obtained from other jurisdictions which  
outline their solutions? I find that unlikely.  
[144] The appellant submits that a few of the records disclosed to her contain brief  
references to solutions in other jurisdictions including California. The appellant argues  
that this is shows that the ministry was aware of the solutions employed by other  
jurisdictions and that this knowledge likely came from researching the issue. The  
appellant submits that this is evidence that better, more detailed records of solutions  
from other jurisdictions must exist in the ministry’s record holdings and have not been  
disclosed to her.  
[145] Finally, the appellant submits that she has a general knowledge of the way our  
government works when it develops new legislation. As part of this knowledge, the  
appellant submits that she is aware of the practice that, prior to developing new  
- 31 -  
legislations, a ministry would research solutions employed by other jurisdictions. This is  
exactly why the appellant asked for records discussing possible solutions in other  
jurisdictions. The appellant reiterated her position that the ministry failed to meet its  
burden that it conducted a reasonable search because it failed to provide its search  
representations in affidavit form.  
Analysis and finding  
[146] Based on my review of the parties’ representations, I find that the ministry’s search  
for responsive records was reasonable.  
[147] The appellant is correct that I specified in the Notice of Inquiry that the ministry’s  
representations should be provided in an affidavit form and the affidavit should have been  
signed by the person or persons who conducted the actual search. However, on the basis  
of the ministry’s representations and the substance and number of records at issue in this  
appeal, I am prepared to accept the ministry’s representations as sufficient evidence to  
establish the reasonableness of its search. In Order MO-1450, the adjudicator addressed  
the necessity of evidence being provided in affidavit form and stated the following:  
As the parties are aware, the adjudicative process of this office ordinarily  
involves the review of written submissions rather than an oral hearing.  
Generally, parties to an appeal are not required to and do not submit  
affidavit evidence with their submissions. There may be cases where the  
submission of affidavit evidence is preferable and even essential to the fact-  
finding process, but in many appeals, including those in which section 10(1)  
of the Act is raised, written representations have been found to contain the  
evidence required to support the application of the exemption under  
consideration.  
[148] I agree with this approach and will apply it in this appeal. In certain circumstances,  
affidavit evidence may be preferable; however, in consideration of the evidence that was  
provided by the ministry and the hundreds of pages of records that were located as a  
result of its searches, this is not one of those cases. I have no reasonable basis to  
disregard the detailed and comprehensive representations made by the ministry about its  
search.  
[149] The appellant has provided two main reasons for believing additional responsive  
records may exist: the fact that the search did not yield more detailed records from other  
jurisdictions and her belief that the search terms used by the ministry to conduct its  
search were deficient. I find that neither of these reasons establish that additional  
responsive records should exist.  
[150] I agree with the ministry that the appellant takes issue with the ministry’s lack of  
research relating to other jurisdictions and that this does not form a reasonable basis that  
other responsive records should exist. I confirm, for the appellant’s information, that  
records I reviewed under section 12(1) contained references to other jurisdictions. The  
fact that the records disclosed to the appellant do not contain information from other  
- 32 -  
jurisdictions is not a basis for my finding that the ministry’s search was unreasonable. To  
be clear, the appellant’s general assumptions about the work the ministry should have  
done, including researching immunization practices in other jurisdictions, is not a  
reasonable basis for a finding that the ministry’s search was unreasonable.  
[151] Lastly, I find the ministry’s search terms to be adequate and reasonable in the  
circumstances. I find that there is little difference between the search terms suggested  
by the appellant and the search terms actually used by the ministry. Given the hundreds  
of pages identified by the ministry as responsive, I am satisfied that the ministry’s search  
terms were appropriate and sufficient to identify records responsive to the appellant’s  
request.  
[152] Accordingly, I find the ministry’s search to be reasonable.  
ORDER:  
1.  
I order the ministry to disclose the emails in records 27 and 164 and the withheld  
information in records 185, 189 and 191 by providing the appellant with a copy of  
these emails by September 19, 2022.  
2.  
3.  
4.  
I uphold the ministry’s decision with respect to the remaining records.  
I uphold the ministry’s search as reasonable.  
In order to verify compliance with order provision 1, I reserve the right to require  
the ministry to provide me with a copy of those records order disclosed to the  
appellant.  
Original Signed by:  
Stephanie Haly  
Adjudicator  
August 17, 2022  
- 33 -  
APPENDIX  
Record  
Page  
Description  
Exemption  
claimed  
Number  
number  
1
5
20  
18  
Email  
19(a)  
Cabinet record email with attached  
LRC36 submission (email summarizes  
submission and update on revisions) IPC  
12(1)  
6
18  
20  
8
Cabinet record email with attached LRC  
submission (email summarizes  
submission)  
12(1)  
13  
14  
16  
17  
Cabinet record email with attached slide 12(1)  
deck (ISPA amendment) (email  
summarizes next steps) IPC  
Cabinet record email includes legal  
advice; email refers to updating LRC  
submission IPC  
12(1) and  
19(a)  
37  
5
Cabinet record email with attached LRC  
submission (email summarizes submission  
amendment) - IPC  
12(1)  
Cabinet record email exchange with  
ministry employees regarding LRC form -  
IPC  
12(1)  
36 Legislation and Regulations Committee of Cabinet (LRC)  
- 34 -  
18  
20  
24  
12  
Cabinet record email with attached slide 12(1)  
deck (ISPA amendment) (email  
summarizes next steps) - IPC  
Cabinet record email with attached LRC  
briefing note (email summarizes  
attachment and next steps)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
21  
26  
27  
28  
29  
30  
31  
33  
17  
20  
13  
3
Cabinet record email with attached LRC  
approval form (email details attachment)  
Cabinet record (pages 7 20) email  
12(1) and  
19(a)  
containing legal advice and attachment  
Cabinet record email with attached slide 12(1) and  
deck (technical briefing) 19(a)  
Cabinet record email exchange including 12(1) and  
legal advice  
19(a)  
24  
16  
13  
4
Email exchange  
19(a)  
Cabinet record email with attached slide 12(1)  
deck (ISPA amendment)  
Cabinet record email with attached slide 12(1)  
deck (ISPA amendment)  
Cabinet record email exchange  
regarding questions about LRC submission  
- IPC  
12(1)  
- 35 -  
34  
3
Cabinet record email exchange between 12(1)  
legal counsel and ministry staff regarding  
submission approval  
36  
39  
7
Email with attached information note –  
12(1) and  
email contains legal advice  
19(a)  
19  
Cabinet record email with attached  
information note (email summarizes  
changes); also possible request for legal  
advice  
12(1)  
46  
48  
26  
17  
Cabinet record email with attached LRC  
12(1)  
12(1)  
approval form (email discusses changes)  
Cabinet record email with attached LRC  
approval package (email provides  
summary, instructions, and direction)  
67  
25  
Cabinet record email with attached LRC  
12(1) and  
approval and briefing note (email provides 19(a)  
summary and update)  
68  
70  
95  
43  
36  
24  
Email and attached briefing note, slide  
12(1) and  
deck, option chart IPC  
13(1)37  
Email and attached LRA approval form  
12(1)  
Email  
Not  
responsive  
37 Records are exempt under both section 12(1) and 13(1).  
- 36 -  
96  
6
Email with attached questions and  
responses  
12(1)  
12(1)  
13(1)  
13(1)  
13(1)  
13(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
120  
122  
123  
126  
128  
129  
130  
131  
133  
134  
14  
7
Email with attached briefing note  
Email and attachment  
18  
19  
11  
46  
23  
33  
15  
11  
Email and attachment  
Email and attachment  
Email and attachment  
Email and attached slide deck  
Email and attached document  
Email and attached slide deck  
Email and attached document  
Email and attached document  
- 37 -  
135  
138  
139  
4
Email and attached revised minutes  
12(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
80  
8
Email with slide deck and Cabinet  
submission  
Cabinet record; not reviewed as IPC not  
provided with a copy of the record; not  
referred to in the order  
140  
141  
142  
143  
144  
145  
146  
15  
5
Email with attached Deputy Minister’s  
12(1)  
12(1)  
briefing slide deck  
Email with attached Minister’s speaking  
notes for committee meeting  
20  
12  
30  
94  
21  
Email with attached Committee submission 12(1)  
Email with attached Minister’s Questions  
12(1)  
and Answers for Cabinet Submission  
Email with attached documents for review 12(1) and  
13(1)  
Email with attached project plan  
12(1)  
Cabinet record; not reviewed as IPC not  
provided with a copy of the record; not  
referred to in the order  
12(1)  
- 38 -  
147  
148  
149  
150  
151  
152  
154  
155  
156  
157  
158  
99  
15  
21  
21  
20  
5
Email with attached Cabinet Submission  
for committee  
12(1)  
12(1)  
Email with attached questions and  
answers  
Email with attached document for Cabinet 12(1)  
submission  
Email with attached communication plan  
for Cabinet submission  
12(1)  
12(1)  
13(1)  
12(1)  
13(1)  
13(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
Email with attached plan  
Email with attached questions and  
answers  
22  
19  
17  
30  
3
Email with attached documents  
Email with attached documents  
Email with attached document  
Email with attached slide deck for  
committee presentation  
Email with attached meeting minute  
- 39 -  
160  
161  
162  
163  
164  
166  
167  
168  
169  
170  
173  
24  
8
Email with attached information note  
12(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
Email with attached briefing note for  
Cabinet Submission  
32  
13  
47  
4
Email with attached slide deck  
Email  
Not  
responsive  
Email with attached technical briefing slide 12(1)  
deck  
Email with attached Information note  
Email with attached briefing note  
Email with attached document  
12(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
10  
13  
23  
8
Email with attached briefing note for  
committee meeting  
Email with attached information note  
22  
Email with attached briefing note  
- 40 -  
183  
184  
185  
187  
189  
190  
191  
192  
193  
195  
200  
19  
11  
7
Email with attached document  
12(1)  
Email with attached technical briefing slide 12(1)  
deck  
Email chain  
14(1)(i)  
11  
3
Email with attached letter of agreement  
Email with attached document  
Email  
21(1)  
14(1)(i)  
25  
13  
14  
9
Not  
responsive  
Email with attached document  
Email with attached document (brief)  
Email with attached document  
Email with attachment document  
Email chain  
14(1)(i)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
236  
7
14(1)(i)  
13(1)  
- 41 -  
202  
204  
205  
208  
210  
211  
212  
213  
214  
216  
217  
3
Email  
Not  
responsive  
18  
8
Email with attached committee submission 12(1)  
Email with attached briefing note  
Email with attached letter of agreement  
Email with attached document  
Email with attached document  
Email chain  
12(1) and  
19(a)  
8
21(1)  
7
13(1)  
13(1)  
12(1)  
7
2
89  
9
Email with attached document  
Email with attached document  
19(a) and  
21(1)  
13(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
21  
3
Email with attached committee approval  
form and draft amendment  
Email chain  
- 42 -  
227  
230  
236  
239  
243  
244  
245  
246  
251  
254  
255  
30  
6
Email and attached package  
12(1)  
Email with attachment  
Not  
responsive  
6
Email with attached document  
Email with attached document  
Email with attached Cabinet submission  
Email with attached document  
Email with attached document  
Email  
12(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
20  
35  
2
11  
3
Not  
responsive  
3
Email with attached document  
12(1)  
12(1)  
12(1)  
37  
21  
Email with attached draft briefing, draft  
assessment form and draft amendment  
Email with attached slide deck  
- 43 -  
256  
257  
15  
20  
Email with attached draft amendment  
12(1)  
12(1)  
Email with attached draft amendment  
 [an error occurred while processing this directive]

© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission