Eviction Information Requirements Form (Disclosure)

From Caselaw.Ninja

Ontario (Attorney General) (Re), 2018 CanLII 69587 (ON IPC)

[1] The Ministry of the Attorney General (the ministry or MAG) received the following request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA or the Act):

When a landlord receives an eviction order from the [Landlord and Tenant Board (the LTB)], to enforce the eviction they must file it with the court enforcement officer (sheriff) in the appropriate jurisdiction where the enforcement is to take place. The landlord files their order and fills out an eviction information instruction sheet [the Eviction Information Requirements Form (the EIRF)[1]]. The instruction sheet provides the enforcement office (sheriff) with relevant information. The requestor (usually the landlord) provides their contact information, name, address & telephone number. I am requesting that information. The information of the requestor…

[39] In this appeal, the issue is whether MAG has custody or control of the EIRFs, forms filed with the sheriff of the court. I agree with MAG that the court, not the ministry, has custody or control of the EIRFs. In making this finding, I agree with MAG that:

The information on the EIRF is not created by an employee of the ministry. The information is provided by a litigant to an LTB proceeding (specifically, the owner/landlord of the property subject to eviction) and is filed with the court and placed in a court file by court staff.
As part of the court record, the content, use and disposal of the records are within the authority of the court and not the ministry.
The information is used by the sheriff or the Enforcement Officer in carrying out the duties assigned to them by the judiciary and act under the direction of the court pursuant to section 76(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to facilitate the enforcement of the eviction order and to assess any safety risks associated with the eviction.
The enforcement of LTB orders is not a core function of the ministry and does not relate to the ministry’s mandate and functions.

[40] Even though the ministry hires sheriffs or Enforcement Officers, as referred to above, this alone does not mean that MAG has custody or control of records in their possession. I find that based on my review of the factors listed above, the ministry does not have custody or control of the responsive records, the EIRFs, which are court records. As a result, there is no right of access to the records from MAG under section 10(1) of FIPPA.


I uphold the ministry’s decision that it does not have custody or control of the EIRFs and dismiss the appeal.