Thank you very much.

I'll just talk a bit about.... Here, on this amendment, we're talking about a PRA, a private right of action, which is about damages. It's somebody who has lost something because of a privacy violation, and they go to court to make themselves whole again. This is not about correcting the privacy violation. It's about making themselves whole again and getting damages for the loss that they suffered.

In that case, as Mr. Schaan said, the track is that the OPC makes a finding of a violation, and then that plaintiff takes that finding of a violation to the court and says, “Look, there's been a violation. The OPC says so after an investigation, after an inquiry. I've lost X, Y, Z because of this privacy violation”—whether that's reputation or anything else—“and I would like to be made whole again through damages.” That is that track.

Then there is another track, which is the OPC making a finding that could possibly be appealed to the tribunal. That is the actual finding. The tribunal acts as an oversight mechanism for that finding. It's not a dual track, as it would be for a PRA, like Mr. Schaan discussed. It's really an oversight mechanism, not a dual track. That cannot be appealed to a court, as we discussed last time. That is actually a final decision on a particular factual finding. In that finding, the tribunal gives deference to the commissioner on findings of fact and findings of mixed law and fact. That cannot be appealed to a court. That can only be judicially reviewed, which is entirely different. It's not a substantive consideration of the merits. It's just a question of whether the tribunal acted reasonably or not.

Is the court a backstop? It's always a backstop, but how you get there—whether it's on a PRA or on a finding of a violation—is very different. It's a different standard of review, and the court plays a different role in each of those situations.