Property Owner Names Aren't Personal Information: IPC Order MO-4776 and Other Municipal Compliance Updates

This was a substantive week for Ontario municipal clerks. The Information and Privacy Commissioner issued an order that should prompt many municipalities to revisit how they handle property owner information on building permits and property standards files. Meanwhile, AMO’s latest Watchfile flagged an imminent deadline on road construction standards and a funding opportunity worth tracking. Here’s what you need to know.

Privacy and FOI: Property Owner Names on Building Permits

The most consequential item this week is IPC Order MO-4776 (Appeal MA23-00792, Corporation of the City of Orillia, March 9, 2026), which addressed whether a municipality could withhold property owner names and contact information from building permit and property standards records under the personal information exemption in section 14(1) of MFIPPA.

The short answer: no — at least not where the owner operates the property in a business capacity.

The adjudicator found that the property owners at issue were operating a multi-unit rental building as landlords, in a business capacity. Under sections 2(2.1) and 2(2.2) of MFIPPA, the name, title, and contact information of an individual that identifies them in a business, professional, or official capacity is excluded from the definition of “personal information” — and section 2(2.2) makes clear that this exclusion applies “even if [the] individual carries out business, professional or official responsibilities from their dwelling and the contact information for the individual relates to that dwelling.” Because the information was not personal information, the section 14(1) personal privacy exemption could not apply, and the city was ordered to disclose the records.

This isn’t new law. In reaching this conclusion, the adjudicator relied on earlier Order MO-3407, which reached a similar result on similar facts. But many municipal offices still routinely redact property owner names from building permits and property standards files as a matter of course, sometimes out of caution, sometimes because the practice was never revisited after it was first established.

What This Means

If your office applies blanket redactions to property owner information on building permits or property standards orders, this is a good moment to revisit that practice. The test isn’t whether someone is a property owner — it’s whether they’re acting in a business capacity with respect to that property. A landlord operating a multi-unit rental building? Business capacity. An individual homeowner with a building permit for a deck? That’s a different analysis.

Practical step: Review your current FOI processing guidelines for building permit and property standards requests. If the default is to redact all owner names, update the procedure to distinguish between business-capacity owners (disclose) and individual homeowners (assess on a case-by-case basis under s. 14(1)).

Privacy and FOI: Two Provincial Orders Worth Filing Away

Two provincial FIPPA orders from this week won’t require immediate action from most municipal clerks, but they’re useful reference points for when specific situations arise.

Youth Justice Records and FIPPA

IPC Order PO-4794 (Appeal PA23-00491, Archives of Ontario, March 9, 2026) involved a FIPPA request to the Archives of Ontario for 1940s-era incarceration records relating to a named individual. The archives denied access, citing the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). The adjudicator upheld that decision, finding that the records related to the “offence of delinquency” as defined in the predecessor Juvenile Delinquents Act, and that the YCJA’s transitional provision at section 163 brings those historical records within its privacy regime. Because federal legislation prevails over provincial under the doctrine of paramountcy, the IPC had no jurisdiction to order disclosure under FIPPA. The order also notes (at paragraph 14) that two prior IPC orders — MO-4421 under MFIPPA and PO-4567 under FIPPA — have reached the same conclusion about the YCJA displacing provincial access rights.

What This Means: If your municipality ever receives an access request that could touch historical institutional records — particularly from facilities that may have housed young offenders — the same YCJA paramountcy analysis could arise under MFIPPA (see MO-4421, referenced in this order), regardless of the age of the records. This is a narrow scenario, but one where getting it wrong carries serious consequences. If you encounter it, consult legal counsel before processing.

What the IPC Expects in a “Reasonable Search”

IPC Order PO-4793 (Appeal PA24-00522, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, March 9, 2026) involved a FIPPA request for records relating to the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act (DRAPA). The appellant argued the ministry’s search was too narrow — limited to the keywords “DRAPA” and “Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act” — and should have included terms like “Cherrywood,” “Greenbelt,” and “Special Report.” The adjudicator upheld the ministry’s search as reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The order restates the standard test for a reasonable search under section 24 of FIPPA: an institution must show that an experienced employee knowledgeable in the subject matter of the request made a reasonable effort to locate records that are reasonably related to the request. On that standard, what mattered here was not the breadth of the keywords but the institution’s process — the ministry held two intake meetings to identify responsive program areas, engaged senior staff across multiple branches (including the Minister’s Office, Deputy Minister’s Office, Legal Services, and Policy Division), searched Outlook mailboxes, branch shared drives, and paper records, and located roughly 1,700 pages.

What This Means: When your municipality responds to a FOI request, the IPC doesn’t just want to know what you searched — it wants to know that you engaged the right people and ran a defensible process. PO-4793 is a useful reference for what a well-documented search looks like: intake meetings with subject matter experts, searches conducted by employees who actually understand where the records live, and a written record of who searched what and why. You don’t need to expand every search to the broadest possible terms — you need to show the effort was reasonable given the request.

Municipal Policy: AMO Watchfile Highlights

The AMO Watchfile for March 26 flagged three items that deserve attention.

Mandatory OPSS.MUNI Road Construction Standards — Deadline March 30

The Ministry of Transportation has posted a consultation to make certain Ontario Provincial Standards for Municipal Road Construction (OPSS.MUNI) mandatory for Ontario municipalities in three priority areas: hot mix asphalt, aggregates, and drainage. The proposal would also require all municipalities to use the OPSS.MUNI 100 General Conditions of Contract as the standard set of terms and conditions in contracts with third-party road construction contractors. Municipalities would be required to comply with the standards effective July 1, 2027, and to submit annual reports to MTO on their application. An exemption process is included for municipality-specific circumstances.

This proposal implements authority granted under the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 (Bill 60), which amended the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act and received Royal Assent on November 27, 2025.

The comment deadline on the MTO Technical Consultation Portal is March 30, 2026 — effectively tomorrow as of this writing. If your municipality maintains roads and hasn’t already submitted feedback, flag this internally immediately. Even if you can’t prepare a detailed submission in time, a brief response noting your municipality’s interest in the consultation puts you on record.

EASE Grant — Applications Open Until May 7

The Enhancing Access to Spaces for Everyone (EASE) Grant provides funding for accessibility improvement projects. Applications are open until May 7, 2026.

What This Means: If your municipality has planned facility upgrades — ramps, automatic doors, accessible washrooms, wayfinding improvements — check whether any of them qualify. The application window is generous enough to get a submission together, but don’t wait until the last week. Coordinate with your facilities team now.

Workplace Safety Workshop

AMO also flagged a “Preventing Escalated Behaviours” workshop focused on safer municipal workplaces. This is directly relevant to your obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) — particularly the workplace violence and harassment provisions in Part III.0.1 — if your staff interact with the public at service counters. Worth passing along to whoever handles staff training.

Action Items

Here’s this week’s checklist:

• Review your FOI processing for building permits and property standards files. If you’re applying blanket redactions to property owner names, update your procedures in light of MO-4776 to distinguish business-capacity owners from individual homeowners.
• Flag the road construction standards consultation immediately if your municipality maintains roads — the deadline is March 30.
• Review the EASE Grant criteria against any planned accessibility upgrades and start an application before the May 7 deadline.
• File PO-4793 and PO-4794 as reference points for your FOI team — reasonable search methodology and YCJA protections, respectively.