In a significant victory for government accountability, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that Premier Doug Ford cannot shield records of government business conducted on his personal phone from public scrutiny. The decision reinforces that transparency is not optional for elected officials.
A Clear Legal Precedent for Public Accountability
The court's ruling stems from a challenge by the Ford government against an earlier decision by Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner. The commissioner had determined that when Premier Ford uses his personal device for government work, those communications fall under the control of the Cabinet Office and must be disclosed under the province’s freedom-of-information (FOI) laws.
The Premier’s office had argued the records were private, as Ford has publicly shared his personal number and largely conducts government business on that device instead of an official government phone. A panel of three Ontario judges unanimously rejected this argument, establishing a crucial legal precedent.
The court made it unequivocally clear that government business does not become private simply because it is conducted on a personal device. If a politician is discussing departmental or government matters, those records are subject to Ontario’s access-to-information legislation.
Why Freedom-of-Information Laws Are Fundamental
This ruling underscores the foundational role of FOI laws in a functioning democracy. As articulated by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Thomas Cromwell, the overarching purpose of such laws is “to facilitate democracy” by ensuring citizens have the information needed to participate meaningfully and hold officials accountable.
These laws exist to allow taxpayers to see how decisions are made, how public money is spent, and whether elected officials are acting in the public interest. Transparency is the essential mechanism that allows citizens to hold their government to account.
Public access to records helps expose and, importantly, deter waste, mismanagement, and abuse of taxpayer dollars. When officials know their actions may be scrutinized, it discourages problematic behaviour from occurring in the first place.
Real-World Consequences of Transparency
The importance of this legal tool is not theoretical. It is through FOI requests that Ontarians have discovered concrete examples of questionable spending, including:
- A school district spending $32,000 to send staffers to a vacation resort in Honolulu.
- A North Bay mayor charging taxpayers for personal items like cigarettes, golf course memberships, and dog treats.
- Ontario government bureaucrats spending nearly $1 million on hotel meeting rooms, meal expenses, and accommodations during education union negotiations.
Without robust FOI laws, these stories would never have come to light, and the behaviours might have continued unchecked. The recent court decision prevents a dangerous workaround where politicians could avoid scrutiny simply by switching communication devices, which would render transparency laws meaningless.
Government power is exercised on behalf of citizens, and it must always be subject to public oversight. The work of elected officials belongs to the taxpayers, not to private devices or personal accounts. The court’s ruling powerfully upholds this fundamental democratic principle.
The opinion was authored by Devin Drover, General Counsel, and Noah Jarvis, Ontario Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
