Ontario’s transparency watchdog is renewing her calls for the Ford government to scrap its controversial freedom of information crackdown, saying the changes will make the province “less transparent than even the federal government.”
Shortly after a court concluded Premier Doug Ford was using his personal phone to conduct government business and ruled some of those records should be public, the province moved to change access to information laws.
The move — which the government has claimed is simply about improving outdated legislation — will exclude the premier, his cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants and all their staff from freedom of information requests.
In her submission to the government, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario Patricia Kosseim urged the government to rethink its approach.
She said the changes will make Ontario less transparent, also raising major security concerns by implicitly allowing the widespread use of personal emails and phones to make public decisions.
“Allowing them to conduct government-related business on their personal email accounts and devices significantly increases the risk of privacy breaches and cyberattacks,” Kosseim wrote.
“These risks are further amplified when they keep these personal email accounts and devices after they leave government.”
Successive rulings by the IPC and then an Ontario court that Ford’s personal phone should be subject to transparency rules hinged on the question of who had “control” over the records, Ford as a private citizen or the government.
Get daily National news
Get daily Canada news delivered to your inbox so you’ll never miss the day’s top stories.
Those decisions essentially focus on whether a record relates to government business and who should be in charge of it, rather than who physically possesses it.
In the case of Ford’s phone, the court ruled against the government and said that because Ford used his personal phone for government work, it should be in the “control” of the province.
The wording of Ontario’s new freedom of information changes is written to include similar language — specifically stating that records under the “control” of a cabinet minister or their staff cannot be released.
Kosseim said that the change would make the province more secretive and less transparent than any of the rest of the country, including the areas with which the government claims it is aligning.
“By excluding these records from (the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act) altogether, even if they relate to government business and are considered to be under the ‘control’ of a ministry, the bill would place Ontario’s legislation offside the rest of the country,” she wrote.
“Precluding the ‘control’ test would make Ontario’s FIPPA less transparent than even the federal law.”
While both the Ontario Liberals and NDP have pledged they would reverse the changes if elected, the commissioner said if the measures pass, they are likely to be permanent.
“The sweeping exclusion of all records of the premier, cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants and their staff would apply retroactively to 1988,” Kosseim wrote.
“Once the right to access these records is removed, it will be very difficult to restore. This raises serious concerns about the state of Ontarians’ information rights and independent oversight.”
While Premier Ford has said only the media and his political opponents care about restrictions to the existing freedom of information laws, recent polling found a majority oppose the changes.
Research conducted by Abacus Data on behalf of the Canadian Union of Public Employees found just 24 per cent of those asked support the new changes, while 60 per cent are against them. A separate poll by Liaison Strategies found 65 per cent of those polled opposed retroactively changing freedom of information laws.
The government did not respond to questions ahead of publication, but has repeatedly said its changes are about modernizing access to information rules.
Asked why Ontario was going further than other jurisdictions by excluding records, Stephen Crawford, the minister for public and business service delivery and procurement, questioned the role of the information and privacy commissioner.
“In terms of the IPC, the privacy commissioner, I mean, her word is not gospel,” he previously said.
“As you’re probably aware, she lost a case in court in 2024 when she basically challenged the government on cabinet confidentiality, so I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on her words.”
The government has also lost several court cases, including the recent defeat on the release of Ford’s cellphone records.
The changes to freedom of information laws have been included in the government’s budget bill, which is set to head to committee after passing its second reading.
© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.