Ontario to Exempt Ford and Cabinet from Freedom of Information Requests

On March 13, 2026, the Ontario government announced what critics are calling the most significant rollback of government transparency in Canadian provincial history: a planned law that would exempt the offices of Premier Doug Ford, his cabinet ministers, and parliamentary assistants from freedom-of-information requests entirely [1][2]. The legislation, to be introduced when the legislature resumes on March 23, would apply retroactively — potentially killing ongoing legal battles over the Greenbelt scandal and Ford's personal cellphone records that have been fought through the courts for years [3][4].

What the Proposed Law Would Do

Stephen Crawford, Ontario's Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery and Procurement, announced the changes as part of a package he said would "modernize" the province's cybersecurity and privacy framework [1]. But the headline provision goes far beyond cybersecurity: once enacted, all records generated and held by the premier's office, any cabinet minister's office, parliamentary assistants, and their political staff would be carved out of Ontario's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) [2][3].

That means the public — including journalists, opposition researchers, and advocacy groups — would lose the ability to request emails, internal memos, meeting schedules, call logs, and any other documents from the offices where the most consequential government decisions are made [4].

Critically, the law would also:

• Apply retroactively, meaning hundreds of existing FOI requests in the pipeline — including those related to major scandals — could be quashed [3][5]
• Extend response timelines from 30 calendar days to 45 business days (approximately 63 calendar days), more than doubling the effective wait time [6][7]
• Allow two deadline extensions instead of the current one, further delaying responses [7]

Crawford justified the exemption by invoking "the Westminster tradition of cabinet confidentiality," arguing it would allow for "candid conversations, important discussions, without any potential blowback" [5]. He claimed the change would bring Ontario in line with most other Canadian provinces and the federal government [1][5].

The Government's Comparison Falls Apart

The claim that Ontario would merely be following other jurisdictions is contested. Currently, only the federal government, Nunavut, Saskatchewan, and Quebec explicitly exclude ministers' offices from access-to-information laws [8]. Nova Scotia, like Ontario, currently requires similar disclosures [8].

Moreover, Canada's federal Information Commissioner, Caroline Maynard, recently told Parliament that documents from the prime minister's and cabinet ministers' offices should be subject to federal Access to Information requests — directly contradicting the Ontario government's suggestion that federal practice supports the change [5][9]. Maynard has expressed "disappointment" with the lack of ambition in access-to-information reform at the federal level [9], suggesting that the jurisdictions Ontario claims to be emulating are themselves seen as inadequate by their own transparency watchdogs.

It is also worth noting that Ontario's existing FIPPA already exempts records that would reveal cabinet deliberations or advice to government [7]. The proposed changes go dramatically further, creating a blanket exclusion for all records held in ministers' offices — regardless of whether they involve cabinet confidence or routine government business.

Source: GDELT Project

Data as of Mar 15, 2026CSV

"Public Accountability Is Eviscerated"

Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner, Patricia Kosseim, issued a blistering response. She described the proposal as "shocking" and "alarming," warning that "the most alarming proposal would prevent Ontarians from accessing any government information held by the Premier, cabinet ministers, elected officials, and political staff" [4][10].

"If records about government business can be shielded from scrutiny simply because they sit in a minister's office, on a staffer's device, or within a political account, public accountability is eviscerated," Kosseim said [4][7].

Kosseim emphasized that retroactively changing the law sends a message that "if oversight bodies get in the way, just change the rules" [10]. She noted that FIPPA already protects personal, confidential, and constituency records from disclosure, arguing that "this amendment is about hiding government-related business to evade public accountability" [10].

"Freedom of information and privacy are fundamental rights for upholding a healthy democracy at a time when we need it the most. Once weakened, they are difficult to restore," she warned, urging the province to withdraw the changes [10].

James Turk of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University said the change would produce "a significant reduction in government accountability" [7]. Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch warned it "will lead to more corruption and waste of the public's money and other abuses of power" [5][7].

The Scandals That FOI Exposed — and Could Now Be Buried

The timing of the announcement has not gone unnoticed. Several of the Ford government's most damaging scandals were uncovered or advanced through FOI requests that would be impossible under the proposed law.

The Greenbelt Scandal: In December 2022, the Ford government removed nearly 3,000 hectares from the environmentally sensitive Greenbelt outside Toronto for housing development. Reporting that eventually forced the government to reverse the decision was, as multiple outlets have noted, "done largely through FOI requests" [3][11]. The Information and Privacy Commissioner received 30 FOI appeals related to the Greenbelt throughout 2022 and 2023, uncovering systemic problems including deleted emails, the use of codewords to evade searches, communication through personal devices, and improper documentation [11][12]. Political staffers were found to have used personal email addresses to communicate with development lobbyists and allegedly deleted records regularly [12].

Ford's Personal Cellphone Records: Since late 2022, Global News has been fighting to access Doug Ford's personal call log — a device the government has admitted Ford uses for government business. An adjudicator with the IPC sided with Global News and ordered Ford to hand over his records. A panel of three judges then rejected the government's request for judicial review [3][10]. The retroactive application of the new law could effectively eliminate this case. Lawyer Paul Champ, who has been involved in the legal battles, confirmed as much [5].

Other Investigations: CBC has noted that FOI requests were instrumental in uncovering stories about Ontario's bike lane removals, government advertising spending, the expansion of for-profit health clinics, and the Ontario Place spa allocation [7]. NDP Leader Marit Stiles specifically cited the government's role in the Ontario Place spa deal as an investigation that would become "impossible" under the new law [1][6].

Political Opposition Mounts

Opposition leaders from all parties condemned the announcement within hours.

NDP Leader Marit Stiles called the changes "outrageous," stating: "There is no reason for this government to change these laws, other than that they are actually trying to hide from the public" [5]. She argued the changes are designed to avoid having to disclose records like text messages and accused Ford of "changing the rules so he can hide the truth from Ontarians" [1][6].

Liberal MPP Stephanie Smyth said she was "completely shocked," noting pointedly: "Freedom of Information, remember, that's what it's called — is deeply concerning" [5].

Ontario Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner accused Ford of "fighting accountability" and "changing the rules to make it easier to hide the truth" [13].

Toronto Councillor Josh Matlow said the announcement "crosses the line between a healthy democracy and a decline toward autocracy" [14].

Brent Jolly, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, emphasized that freedom-of-information requests are "a basic way" for journalists to hold governments accountable [14].

The Cybersecurity Shield

The government has packaged the FOI exemption alongside genuinely substantive cybersecurity reforms — a framing that critics view as deliberate cover. The legislation would introduce mandatory cybersecurity practices for hospitals, school boards, children's aid societies, and post-secondary institutions [15]. Broader public-sector organizations would need to complete cyber maturity assessments every two years, report critical incidents, and designate a single point of contact for cybersecurity events [15]. School boards would be required to notify parents when students' personal information is disclosed to third-party software providers [15].

These provisions build on Bill 194, the Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, which received Royal Assent in November 2024 and introduced privacy breach reporting requirements and privacy impact assessments for FIPPA-covered institutions [16].

Crawford pointed to the cybersecurity measures and the changed communications landscape — "We didn't have smartphones. We didn't have cyber threats. We didn't have cloud computing," he said [6] — to justify the broader package. But critics argue the cybersecurity provisions are being used as a Trojan horse to smuggle through the FOI rollback.

A Pattern of Opacity

The proposed legislation does not exist in isolation. The Ford government has faced sustained criticism over its approach to transparency throughout its tenure. The Greenbelt affair revealed a government where political staff routinely deleted emails, used personal devices and accounts for government business, and employed coded language to frustrate oversight [11][12]. The Ontario Greenbelt email-gate scandal received a national lack-of-transparency award from the Canadian Association of Journalists [12].

In this context, the proposed FOI exemption reads less like modernization and more like formalization — turning what was previously rule-breaking into rule-making. As Commissioner Kosseim put it, rather than fixing the transparency failures her office uncovered, the government appears to be changing the law so that those failures can no longer be investigated [10].

What Happens Next

The legislation is expected to be introduced when the Ontario legislature resumes sitting on March 23, 2026 [1][2]. With the Progressive Conservatives holding a commanding majority of 78 seats in the 124-seat legislature, passage is widely expected unless public pressure forces a reversal — as it did with the Greenbelt development plan.

The stakes extend beyond Ontario. If the province succeeds in exempting its highest political offices from FOI, it could set a precedent that other provincial governments follow, further eroding the infrastructure of government transparency across Canada at a time when the federal Information Commissioner is pushing in the opposite direction [9].

For now, the question is whether Ontarians will treat this as the kind of abstract governance issue that fails to generate sustained public outrage — or whether the memory of the Greenbelt scandal, the deleted emails, and the years-long battle over a premier's cellphone records will make this time different.