Page: 3 Ottawa of all “emails, letters and faxes” sent or received by Mr. O’Connor to and from anyone at CAS3 since February, 2007. [9] The City Clerk responded on December 6, 2007, stating that: the communications did not relate to Mr. O’Connor’s duties as City Solicitor, but rather to his role with CAS; the documents were not within the City’s custody or control and fall outside the scope of MFIPPA; and therefore the City would not be processing his request. [10] Mr. Dunn appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (“IPC”) and a hearing was conducted before Adjudicator Catherine Corbin. By this point, the original request (which had led to the identification of 417 pages of records as falling within the category of documents sought), had through the process of mediation and without prejudice consensual disclosure, been reduced to six pages. All are emails sent by the Executive Director of CAS to various CAS personnel including Mr. O’Connor. None have anything to do with the business of the City of Ottawa. C. THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATOR [11] The Arbitrator’s analysis of the issue before her covers approximately four pages of her decision, of which two pages are extensive quotations from two other IPC decisions. [12] The Arbitrator began her analysis by referring to established authority that a “purposive approach must be taken to ‘custody or control’ questions” under s. 4(1) of the Act. That is a correct statement of the law, but this statement is the extent of her analysis of it. [13] The Arbitrator then correctly noted that possession of documents is not necessarily determinative, stating that bare possession of documents is not sufficient in the absence of responsibility for the care and protection of them. She cited with approval, the decision of former Commissioner Sidney Linden in Order 120 and set out a list of factors he identified as relevant to the consideration of whether an institution has “care or control” of a document. [14] Next, the Arbitrator cited as being particularly relevant the decision in Order PO-1725, which involved a request for access to an electronic agenda of an employee at the Premier’s office, which contained both governmental and personal appointments. [15] Finally, the Arbitrator considered the relevant factors identified by Commissioner Linden and concluded that the weight of those factors supported a finding that the emails in this case were within the custody and/or control of the City. In particular, the Arbitrator found it persuasive that: (1) the City had physical possession of the emails on its server; (2) the City had the authority to regulate the email system and could not divest itself of its responsibility by choosing not to exercise control over a particular type of record; and (3) since the City has the right to monitor the emails on its system for unauthorized use, any emails on the system at any given time are within the City’s control, even if the City has not actually accessed or used them. 3 Various individuals and addresses are specified in the request, but all appear to be CAS related and to involve Mr. O’Connor.