Page: 2 [3] This case turns on the interpretation of s. 4(1) of the Municipal Freedom & Protection of Privacy Act1 (“MFIPPA” or “the Act”), which states: Every person has a right of access to a record or a part of a record in the custody or under the control of an institution unless, (a) the record or the part of the record falls within one of the exemptions under sections 6 to 15; or (b) the head is of the opinion on reasonable grounds that the request for access is frivolous or vexatious. [4] For the reasons that follow, I find that emails of this nature do not fall within the scope of the Act. The adjudicator erred in law in finding to the contrary and her decision is therefore set aside. The fundamental error underlying the Adjudicator’s decision is her failure to consider the purpose and intent of freedom of information legislation in determining the scope of the Act and whether it applied to the private communications of individuals who happen to be employed by government. B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND [5] The factual background is not in dispute. [6] The City of Ottawa permits incidental personal use of its email system by its employees, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions imposed is that the City retains the right to monitor its IT systems, including email, at any time and without notice “for security breaches and non-compliance with City policies and procedures, as well as for network management reasons.” The City’s Responsible Computing Policy also specifies that electronic information and IT assets remain the property of the City. However, employees are not required to retain personal emails sent and received by them and can delete them whenever and as they see fit. [7] Rick O’Connor worked for the City of Ottawa as a City Solicitor. In his spare time, he volunteered on the Board of Directors of the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”). There is no connection between Mr. O’Connor’s volunteer work for CAS and his work for the City. Mr. O’Connor used his work email address to send and receive emails relating to his CAS volunteer work. He segregated such emails in a separate file folder, but they were stored within that folder on the City’s email server. There is no other connection between the City and those emails and nothing improper in Mr. O’Connor’s use of his work email for this purpose. [8] On October 23, 2007, the respondent John Dunn made a request under the Municipal Freedom & Protection of Privacy Act2 (“MFIPPA” or “the Act”) seeking disclosure by the City of 1 R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56 2 R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56