Page: 10 approach is based on the presumption that disclosure of the documents would support the democratic purpose and should only be applied when the documents in question properly fall within the legislation. Further, the exemption provisions dealing with personal information and privacy issues are concerned more with the content of documents being personal in nature, whereas the objection to production in this case goes to the nature of the document itself, and not necessarily any sensitivity relating to its content. In my view, the analysis as to the applicability of the Act is properly conducted at this preliminary stage, while recognizing that a conclusion that the City had custody or control of these emails is not determinative of disclosure as exemptions might apply depending on their content. [33] The respondents further submit that the interpretation urged by the applicant requires an impermissible “reading in” of words not included in the legislation. Again, I disagree. The respondents point to examples of American legislation considered by the Williams Commission which had specific provisions restricting the application of the legislation to “information relating to the conduct of the people’s business,”14 or “retained by a public body in the performance of an official function.”15 The respondents submit that the failure of the Legislature to adopt this type of language indicates an intention to cast the net of inclusion more broadly. There is no support for that proposition in the language of the Williams Commission report itself, which refers repeatedly to the purpose of the legislation as relating to documents about the functioning of government. [34] Applying a purposive interpretation to the words “custody” and “control” and concluding that they do not extend to the circumstances in this case does not involve reading anything into the statute. It is merely an interpretation of the legislation based on already established criteria, but bearing in mind the purpose of the legislation. [35] The Children’s Aid Society is not an agency subject to freedom of information legislation. Mr. O’Connor, in his personal capacity, is also not subject to having his personal documents seized and passed over to any member of the public who requests them. The communications between CAS and Mr. O’Connor have no connection whatsoever to the functioning of government nor to the business affairs of the City of Ottawa. It follows that providing public access to such documents does nothing to enhance participation in municipal affairs and prohibiting access does nothing to impair democratic values. Quite simply, these documents have nothing to do with municipal government and are not remotely connected to anything the legislation was intended to encompass. Further, the seizure of such documents by the City and the delivery of them to a third party would be antithetical to the privacy rights of individuals, which is another goal the legislation seeks to protect. Is there a difference between emails and paper documents? [36] Counsel advise that there has been no judicial determination to date as to the applicability of freedom of information legislation to personal employee emails that happen to be in the bare possession of a government institution. However, in most respects I can see little difference between 14 California Public Records Act, Cal.Gov.Code 6250-6270 [enacted 1968] 15 Michigan Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 [enacted 1977]