|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Submissions | |
|
||||
|
Report 28 - Access to Information Review Task Force
THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER INVESTIGATIVE POWERS AND PROCEDURES
III - Comparison with Other Jurisdictions
Investigative Powers and Responsibilities
(i) Impartiality and Independence
In four of the five provinces which we examined, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, in Manitoba the Ombudsman, is an Officer of the Legislature. He or she is invariably appointed by the Legislative Assembly and if there is an obligation to make periodic reports such reports are made directly to the Legislative Assembly (38). Québec is the exception in two respects. Firstly, instead of a single commissioner there is the Commission d'accès à l'information which is composed of five members including a chairman. Secondly, the annual report of the Commission is not made directly to the Legislative Assembly, but rather to the Minister of Citizens' Relations and Immigration. The Minister must then table the report in the National Assembly within thirty (30) days of its receipt or, if the Assembly is not sitting, within thirty (30) days of the opening of the next session or resumption of a session (39).
It is also common to provide that neither the Commissioner nor his staff is a competent or compellable witness in respect of any matter that comes to their knowledge as a result of performing duties under the legislation (40). Similarly, the provincial statutes provide protection for the Commissioner and the Commissioner's staff from criminal or civil proceedings in respect of anything done in good faith in the course of the exercise of powers pursuant to the statute (41). Witnesses are also protected in respect of statements made to the Commissioner in most cases (42).
It is also invariably an offence to interfere with an investigation by the Commissioner or to mislead or attempt to mislead the Commissioner (43).
In all cases the Commissioner or Commission has full control over its proceedings and the method or procedure to be followed in conducting investigations or performing any of the other duties assigned pursuant to the Act.
(ii) Confidentiality of Proceedings
It is also consistent throughout these Statutes that the investigations which are conducted by the Commissioner, Ombudsman or Commission are to be conducted in private and that information that is received by the Commissioner is to be kept confidential. Section 56 of the British Columbia legislation provides, in subsection (2), that an inquiry "may be conducted in private". Section 47 provides that the Commissioner must not disclose any information obtained during the course of performing the duties ascribed to him under the Act. The exceptions are when the disclosure is necessary for the purposes of conducting the investigation or establishing the grounds for findings or recommendations. Disclosure is also permitted to the Attorney General if there is information relating to the commission of an offence and in the course of court proceedings for a prosecution for perjury, an offence under the Act or an application for judicial review pursuant to the Act. Similar provisions are to be found in the Alberta legislation in Section 59; in Manitoba in Sections 52 and 55; in Ontario in Section 52(3) [providing that an inquiry may be conducted in private] and Section 55; and in Québec in Section 127. In Québec, even though Section 127 requires confidentiality, the Commission holds public hearings with parts held in camera whenever it is required to ensure the confidentiality of the information. The Task Force has been advised by the Québec Commission that the requirement to hold public hearings is being revisited because of the time required to schedule and hold hearings in every judicial district of the province. A paper investigation and hearing approach is being looked at as a way to expedite the process and provide more timely responses to complaints.
(iii) Investigative Powers
In all cases the Commissioner has the power to compel the production of information and to compel, through a subpoena power, the attendance of witnesses (44). The provincial legislation also provides that the Commissioner has access to any document which is required for an investigation. As is the case with the Federal Commissioner, documents may not be withheld on the basis of privilege, including solicitor-client privilege. (45)
(iv) Investigative Responsibilities
In all cases the legislation sets minimum standards of fairness which must be adhered to by the Commissioner when conducting an investigation. Generally speaking, the provisions are similar to those found in Sections 54 and 56 of the British Columbia legislation. Section 54 provides that a copy of the request for review must not only be given to the head of the public body concerned, but also to "any other person that the commissioner considers appropriate". Section 56, which deals with the obligation to conduct an inquiry if mediation is not successful, provides that any person who received a copy of the request for review, "must be given an opportunity to make representations to the commissioner during the inquiry" (46). Québec is closer to the Federal model in that Section 137 provides for notice of the application for review to the public body and to any third person if the refusal to release information deals with third party information.
(v) Orders Versus Recommendations (47)
As pointed out above in the case of British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Québec, the Commissioner or Commission has the power to order the release of information or to make other orders in connection with the collection and use of personal information. However, before a hearing and an ensuing order, all of these oversight bodies engage in mediation, a process which is directed in some provinces by the legislation. Only if the mediation is not successful in resolving the complaint does a hearing take place. This mediation role of the Provincial Commissioners (and Commission) is discussed more fully below.
In the case of the decision by the Commissioner in British Columbia, Alberta or Ontario, the only appeal recourse is an application for judicial review. In Québec, once the Commission has made a decision, including a decision ordering a public body to release a document or a part of a document, there is provision for an appeal to a judge of the Superior Court on any question of law or jurisdiction. However, leave is required for an appeal from a decision of the Commission. An appeal can be taken by the individual who requested the document, by the public institution, or by a third party affected by the decision. (48) Manitoba is the exception in that the Ombudsman prepares a report on the completion of an investigation which contains his findings about the complaint and any recommendations he considers appropriate respecting the complaint. The head of the institution may choose to disregard that recommendation. The only recourse which the complainant then has is to take the matter up with the court. In this regard the Manitoba process is quite similar to that under the Federal Legislation.
(vi) Conclusions
As can be seen, the powers of these five provincial oversight bodies are quite similar to those of the federal Information Commissioner. The fact that four of the five actually exercise an adjudicative role rather than a traditional Ombudsman role does not appear to be significant. All of them have most of the following powers/obligations in common. All of these powers/obligations are similar, if not identical to those of the Information Commissioner:
Appointed by and report to the legislature;
Immunity from compulsion to testify in other proceedings regarding matters coming to their attention as the result of an investigation;
Protections from civil and/or criminal proceedings in respect of anything done in good faith in the performance of their duties;
Independence and control over investigations and procedures;
With very limited exceptions, obligations of confidentiality, including for most jurisdictions the obligation to conduct investigations in secret; and
Power to subpoena testimony and documents, enter government premises and review documents notwithstanding rules of privilege.
Comparisons With Provincial Ombudsman Legislation
Because the Federal Information Commissioner is an Ombudsman, it is instructive to compare issues such as impartiality, independence, confidentiality of proceedings, investigative powers and investigative responsibilities with comparable Ombudsman legislation. Accordingly, it was decided to look at these issues as they appear in the Ombudsman Legislation of British Columbia (49), Alberta (50), Ontario (51) and Québec (52).
(i) Impartiality and Independence
In the case of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario the Ombudsman is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor on the recommendation or address of the Legislative Assembly. (53) In Québec the Public Protector is appointed by the National Assembly on motion by the Premier Ministre. (54) In all cases the Ombudsman must hold that office exclusive to any other engagement or employment. (55)
In all cases the Ombudsman is not a compellable witness. (56) In all cases the Ombudsman and his staff are protected from civil proceedings against them in respect of anything done by them in good faith in the performance of their duties. (57) It is an offence to interfere with an investigation. (58) The Ombudsman has control over his own proceedings, (59) although, in some cases, the Legislature may make rules or publish guidelines. (60)
(ii) Confidentiality of Proceedings
Section 9 of the British Columbia legislation provides that the Ombudsman and his staff must take oaths with respect to the confidentiality of information which they receive while performing their duties pursuant to the Act. They cannot release information except as permitted by the legislation. Section 9(5) specifically provides that the Ombudsman or any person holding an office or appointment under the Ombudsman "must not give or be compelled to give" evidence in respect of anything that comes to their knowledge in their exercise of duties under the Act except to enforce the powers of investigation, to enforce compliance with the legislation or with respect to a trial of a person for perjury. Section 9(6) provides that investigations under the legislation must be conducted in private although the Ombudsman has the option to decide that there are special circumstances in which public knowledge is essential in order to further the investigation.
Section 17 of the Alberta legislation deals with the conduct of investigations and provides that every investigation shall be conducted in private. Section 20 deals with the maintenance of secrecy and requires that the Ombudsman and every person holding an office or appointment under him must maintain secrecy in respect of matters that come to their knowledge in the exercise of their functions under the legislation. The exception is that the Ombudsman may disclose any matters that he considers ought to be disclosed to establish the grounds for his conclusions and recommendations in any report he makes under the legislation.
In Ontario the comparable provisions are to be found in Section 18 (2) which provides that investigations are to be conducted in private and in Sections 12 and 24 dealing with the obligations of confidentiality on the Ombudsman and his staff.
The Public Protector in Québec also must conduct investigations in secret. (61) Section 34, dealing with the Public Protector's immunity from being called as a witness, also deals with the concurrent obligations of secrecy.
(iii) Investigative Powers
In all cases the Ombudsman/Public Protector has very broad investigative powers, including the power to subpoena documents and witnesses and enter government premises and take documents found there. (62)
(iv) Investigative Responsibilities
Keeping with the wide-ranging mandates of these Ombudsmen/Public Protector and the broad powers that they have, the constituting legislation imposes basic procedures to ensure fairness. Section 17 of the British Columbia legislation provides that:
If it appears to the Ombudsman that there may be sufficient grounds for making a report or recommendation under this Act that may adversely affect an authority or person, the Ombudsman must, before deciding the matter,
(a) inform the authority or person of the grounds, and
(b) give the authority or person the opportunity to make representations, either orally or in writing at the discretion of the Ombudsman.
British Columbia has the most extensive provision. The Alberta legislation does not appear to have a comparable provision, although Ontario and Québec do in Sections 18 (3) and 23 respectively.
(v) Conclusions
As can be seen, the powers and obligations which typically apply to the general purpose Ombudsman, are:
Independence and impartiality, including appointment by and reporting to, the legislative assembly;
Immunity from any compulsion to testify in respect of matters learned during the course of an investigation;
Protection from criminal or civil proceedings in respect of anything done in good faith during an investigation;
General control over the investigative procedures to be followed;
Obligations to conduct investigations in private and to keep information collected during the course of an investigation confidential, other than in limited circumstances such as reporting on the investigation or in offences for perjury or under the legislation for obstruction of the Ombudsman;
Broad powers to compel testimony, compel the production of documents and even enter government premises;
Concurrent obligations to treat individuals fairly and, in particular, to give individuals and institutions who might be the subject of adverse comment in any report an opportunity to make representations before any such report is finalized.
Not surprisingly, these powers and obligations are very similar to those which we found with the federal Commissioner and with the provincial freedom of information and protection of privacy oversight bodies.
Comparisons With Other Jurisdictions
Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the United Kingdom all have comparable legislation dealing with access to government information which includes an independent oversight by an Ombudsman (New Zealand) or by a Commissioner (Ireland and the United Kingdom) with order-making powers. In Australia the oversight function is assigned to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Jurisdiction
(a) Australia
The review procedure under the Australian legislation is actually a two part process. Section 54 provides for an internal review of decisions which have been made otherwise than by the responsible Minister or principal officer of the Agency. Decisions which may be subject to the internal review process are those relating to:
(a) decisions refusing to grant access to documents in accordance with a request;
(b) decisions granting access to only some of the documents requested;
(ba) failure to actually give access to documents in accordance with a decision which has been taken;
(c) decisions to defer access to documents;
(d) decisions with respect to the imposition of charges or the amount of charges;
(e) decisions with respect to the remission of application fees;
(f) decisions with respect to access to personal information, amendment of records of personal information or annotation of records with respect to personal information.
Such applications for internal review are made to the agency which initially made the decision and must be made either within thirty (30) days of notification of the decision or fifteen (15) days after the day on which access to documents has been provided, whichever period is longer. The review provisions require that the review decision must be made by a person other than the person who made the decision in the first place. That person must make a fresh decision. Such review decisions must generally be made within thirty (30) days.
Under the Australian legislation (Section 57) a person may also complain to the Ombudsman regarding action taken by an agency in respect of a request under the Freedom of Information Act. If a complaint is made to the Ombudsman, no application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal may be taken until the Ombudsman has informed the applicant of the result of the complaint. The ability to make a complaint to the Ombudsman is limited to those agencies over which the Ombudsman otherwise has jurisdiction. In accordance with the provisions of the Ombudsman Act 1976, the Ombudsman only makes a recommendation with respect to the matter which is the subject of the complaint.
Section 55 governs applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in respect of decisions. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is an independent Tribunal established pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and has a fairly broad jurisdiction with respect to appeals (judicial review) of administrative decisions by government bodies. It is not limited to the review of decisions pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in respect of any of the matters outlined above. However, no application can be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal unless the person has already applied under Section 54 for an internal review. In that case, the review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is a review of the internal review decision. However, if thirty (30) days have elapsed since the internal review process was commenced and the individual has not received a decision on the internal review process, he or she may, nevertheless, apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. An appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal must generally be made within sixty (60) days of the date of the decision which is to be reviewed. (63) The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has broad powers and can essentially make any decision with respect to the release of information which the Agency or Minister could have made. (64) However, once the Tribunal determines that a document is an exempt document, it does not have the discretion to determine that the document should, in any event, be released. Only the Agency or the Minister has the power to exercise the discretion to release an otherwise exempt document. (65)
The Australian legislation also provides for the issuance of Ministerial Certificates in certain circumstances. These Certificates can be issued in respect of documents affecting national security, defence or international relations, documents affecting relations with States, Cabinet documents, Executive Council documents or internal working documents. If a Certificate is issued by the responsible Minister, it establishes conclusively that the document is an exempt document. If the application for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is in respect of a document for which a Certificate has been issued the Tribunal may review the document and may conclude that there were no reasonable grounds for issuing the Certificate. If the Tribunal agrees that the document is one for which a Certificate may issue, it cannot review the exercise of the discretion to issue the Certificate.
The Tribunal also hears applications by third parties, including third parties with a business interest in a document which is to be released, state governments with an interest in a document and individuals with respect to personal information.
(b) New Zealand
Under the New Zealand legislation the role of Commissioner is undertaken by the Ombudsman whose office is established pursuant to the Ombudsmen Act, 1975. Generally speaking, the Ombudsman has the obligation and authority to investigate any decision or recommendation made or any act done or omitted in relation to a matter of administration. (66) Section 28 of the Official Information Act, 1982 provides for a specific mandate regarding the investigation and review of decisions refusing to make information available pursuant to the Official Information Act. The Ombudsman may also investigate matters with respect to charges made for information, conditions on the use, communication or publication of information and complaints with respect to extensions of time taken in connection with the processing of requests for access to information. (67) The powers of the Ombudsman in connection with his mandate pursuant to the Official Information Act are found in both the Official Information Act, 1982 and the Ombudsmen Act, 1975.
However, the Ombudsman's powers are limited. He may not make a recommendation with respect to the release of information if the Prime Minister certifies that the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice, (i) the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the government of New Zealand; or (ii) the security or defence of specified affiliated states and dependencies of New Zealand. In addition, he may not make a recommendation for the release of information if the Attorney General certifies that the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the prevention, investigation, or detection of offences. In these cases the Ombudsman is limited to making a recommendation to the appropriate Minister that he or she give further consideration to the issue of whether or not the information can be released and whether or not the Certificate ought to be withdrawn. (68)
Otherwise, Section 32 of the Official Information Act, 1982 provides that a public duty arises once the Ombudsman has made a recommendation, and that the department or organization must comply with that recommendation. The public duty may, however, be overridden by an Order in Council. Such an Order in Council must be published in the Gazette and laid before the House of Representatives as soon as practicable after it is made. (69) The Order in Council must set out the reasons for which it is made and the grounds in support of those reasons. The Order in Council must be based on reasons which were placed before the Ombudsman when he made his decision. The Order in Council cannot introduce new grounds for overturning the decision of the Ombudsman. (70)
Section 32B provides for a review by the High Court of the decision to issue an Order in Council.
A requestor who is dissatisfied with a decision by the Ombudsman as a result of an investigation may seek judicial review.
(c) Ireland
In Ireland the oversight function is performed by the Information Commissioner who is also the Ombudsman for Ireland. Prior to a review by the Commissioner, however, Section 14 allows for an application to the head of the public body concerned for a review of a decision which has been made by a person who is exercising a delegated power. The application for internal review must be made within four (4) weeks after notification of the decision. The head of a public body must give a decision with respect to a review within three (3) weeks of receiving the application. It is not necessary to ask for a review of a decision by the head before proceeding to ask for a review by the Commissioner.
The Commissioner reviews decisions of public bodies in relation to requests under the Freedom of Information Act, including decisions refusing to provide information, decisions extending the time for the consideration of a request, decisions with respect to charging of fees and decisions with respect to deferring requests for information which is about to be published. (71)
In addition, under Section 36 the Commissioner has an obligation to keep the operation of the Act under review. He may carry out investigations into the practices and procedures adopted by public bodies generally or by any particular public body. His investigations are to be for the purpose of judging compliance with either the Act generally or specific provisions of the Act. The Commissioner is also to foster and encourage the publication by public bodies of information of relevance or interest to the general public in relation to the public bodies' activities and functions generally (72) and he may prepare and publish commentaries on the practical application and operation of the provisions, or any particular provision, of the Act. (73) The Commissioner's decisions with respect to the granting of access to information and other matters relating to fees, time extensions and deferral of access are final and binding. (74)
However, a Minister may issue a certificate stating that the record is an exempt record for reasons of internal or national security, defence or international relations. The certificate must be reviewed by a committee of ministers. It remains in force for two years and can be reissued. Where a certificate has been issued the commissioner cannot conduct an investigation and require documents.
An appeal of a decision of the Commissioner or the issuance of a certificate may be taken to the High Court on a point of law. (75)
(d) United Kingdom
The United Kingdom passed its first Freedom of Information legislation in 2000, however it will not come into force until 2005.
The oversight function in the United Kingdom is undertaken by the Information Commissioner. (76) There is also an appeal to the Information Tribunal. (77) Section 18 of the legislation creates the Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal. (78)
In addition to undertaking reviews in connection with appeals from decisions refusing information, the Commissioner is specifically charged with promoting the following of good practices by public authorities in terms of their compliance with the requirements of the legislation and their compliance with the provision of codes of practice which are to be issued by the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor. (79) The Commissioner is to undertake a public education function with respect to the operation of the Act, with respect to good practices and with respect to other matters within the scope of his functions under the Act. (80)
The Commissioner can conduct audits at the request of a public authority (81) and is also charged with consulting from time to time with the Keeper of Public Records about good information handling practices and the co-ordination of the codes of practice with policies and procedures put in place for the creation and maintaining of public records. (82) If the Commissioner is not satisfied with the practice of a public authority she has the power to make a recommendation to the authority specifying any steps which she believes ought to be taken to promote compliance with the legislation. (83)
The Commissioner has enforcement powers. Once he has investigated a complaint with respect to a failure to provide information pursuant to the legislation, he may issue a document known as "an Enforcement Notice" requiring the authority to comply with the requirements of the legislation. (84)
If a public authority fails to comply with an Enforcement Notice issued by the Commissioner he may certify in writing to the Court that the public authority has failed to comply with the Notice. (85)
A public authority which is dissatisfied with an Enforcement Notice issued by the Commissioner has the option of appealing to the Information Tribunal. The Tribunal has the power to review any finding of fact upon which the Commissioner based his decision as well as questions of law. (86) An appeal on a point of law lies from a decision of the Tribunal to the Courts. (87)
However, the review authority of the Commissioner is somewhat limited by the provisions of Sections 23 through 25 of the legislation. Section 23 deals with access to information supplied by or relating to bodies dealing with security matters. Section 24 deals with information relating to national security. In both cases there is a provision for a certificate to be signed by a Minister certifying that the information to which the certificate applies falls within the ambit of the exemption. The certificate constitutes conclusive evidence of the fact that the information falls within the exempt category. While the Commissioner may not issue an enforcement order which would be contrary to a certificate he may, under Section 60, appeal to the Tribunal against such a certificate.
In other cases, even where an Enforcement Notice has issued, the obligation to comply with an Enforcement Notice is modified by Section 53 of the Act. That Section provides that the accountable person in respect of the authority to whom the Enforcement Notice was issued may sign and issue a Certificate stating that he has, on reasonable grounds, formed the opinion that there has not been a failure to comply with the requirements of the legislation. A Certificate must be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as practical after its issuance and is conclusive with respect to the release of information.
(e) Conclusions
The way of dealing with the oversight function in respect of decisions relating to the release of government information in other jurisdictions is varied. The Australian example is essentially one which has no specific dedicated oversight body. Once the internal review mechanism is exhausted, a requestor who is dissatisfied with the decision of the public body goes either to the Ombudsman or directly to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which is much the same as being required to go directly to a court.
New Zealand and Ireland have systems which are much more like the ones which we have seen in the provinces where the Information Commissioner has order making powers and adjudicates on the appeal from the decision of the public body. While in both cases there is an opportunity to seek further redress in the courts, such appeals are limited to questions of law. The major difference is the power to issue a Certificate, and thereby limit the review powers of the Ombudsman, and to ultimately issue an Order in Council overriding the duty to comply with an order of the Ombudsman. Finally, the system in the United Kingdom provides for two independent oversight bodies, both the Commissioner and an Information Tribunal. The United Kingdom legislation also provides for the issuance of a Certificate, which has the effect of overriding an order of the Commissioner.
Because the Australian system is different, given the option of an appeal directly to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, there is not as much insight to be achieved in comparing the powers of the Tribunal with the powers given to the Information Commissioner under the Access to Information Act. However, in New Zealand, Ireland and the United Kingdom, the Ombudsman or Information Commissioner plays a role which is very similar to that of the Canadian Information Commissioner. It is helpful to consider how these Commissioners are appointed and how their impartiality and independence compares. Similarly, it is instructive to compare the provisions in the New Zealand, Irish and United Kingdom legislation dealing with issues of confidentiality of proceedings, the investigative powers of the Commissioner and the investigative responsibilities of the Commissioner.
Return to Table of Contents20. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.165, as amended
21. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.A., c.F-18.5, as amended
22. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.M. 1997, c.F175, as amended
23. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.F-31, as amended
24. An Act Respecting Access to Documents Held by Public Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information, R.S.Q. 1982, c.A-2.1, as amended
25. Ombudsman Act, R.S.B.C.1996, c.340
26. Ombudsman Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.O-8
27. Ombudsman Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O-6, as amended
28. Public Protector Act, R.S.Q. 1968, c.P-32
29. Freedom of Information Act, 1982, Act no. 3 of 1982, as amended
30. Official Information Act, 1982
31. Freedom of Information Act, 1997, number 13 of 1997
32. Freedom of Information Act, 2000, chapter 36
33. In the Canadian provinces examined, the Information Commissioners, or their equivalent, have a dual mandate, also fulfilling the role of Privacy Commissioner. Only at the federal level are the responsibilities split between two Commissioners.
34. Amended April 12, 2002, Bill 7-2002
35. Section 66
36. Section 59
37. Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System) [1997] 3 S.C.R. 440
38. British Columbia, Section 37 and Section 51; Alberta, Section 45 and Section 64; Manitoba, Section 1 and Section 58; Ontario, Section 4 and Section 58
39. Section 104, 118 and 119
40. British Columbia, Section 48; Manitoba, Section 53; Ontario, Section 55
41. British Columbia, Section 48; Alberta, Section 60; Manitoba, Section 57; Ontario, Section 55; Québec Section 113 and 114, Section 129
42. British Columbia, Section 45 and Section 46; Alberta, Section 57 and Section 58; Manitoba, Section 54; Ontario, Section 52(9)-(12)
43. British Columbia, Section 74; Alberta, Section 92; Manitoba, Section 85; Ontario, Section 61; Québec Section 160 and Section 161
44. British Columbia, Section 44(1); Alberta, Section 54(1); Manitoba, Section 50(1); Ontario, Section 52; Québec Section 141
45. British Columbia Section 44(3); Alberta Section 54(3); Manitoba Section 50(3); Ontario Section 52(4); Québec, Section 141
46. Alberta, Sections 64(1)(a) and 66(3); Manitoba, Section 61 and Section 64(1); Ontario, Section 50(3) and Section 52(13)
47. See the discussion in "(v)Recommendations Only" under "The Information Commissioner's Investigative Powers and Responsibilities" supra.
48. Sections 147-154
49. Ombudsman Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.340
50. Ombudsman Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. O-8
51. Ombudsman Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O-6
52. Public Protector Act, R.S.Q. 1968, c.P-32, as amended
53. British Columbia, Section 2; Alberta, Section 2; Ontario, Section 3
54. Section 1
55. British Columbia, Section 3(2); Alberta, Section 3; Ontario, Section 5; Québec, Section 6
56. British Columbia, Section 9(5); Alberta, Section 25(2); Ontario, Section 24 (2); Québec, Section 34
57. British Columbia, Section 29; Alberta, Section 25(1) & (4); Ontario, Section 24(1); Québec, Section 35
58. British Columbia, Section 32; Alberta, Section 32; Ontario, Section 27
59. British Columbia, Section 34 (2); Alberta, Section 17(4); Ontario, Section 15(3); Québec, Section 25
60. British Columbia, Section 34(1); Alberta, Section 29; Ontario, Section 15(1)
61. Section 24, see also Section 33
62. British Columbia, Section 15; Alberta, Sections 18 & 26; Ontario, Section 19; Québec, Section 25
63. Section 55(4)
64. Section 58(1)
65. Section 58(1) and (2)
66. Section 13
67. Section 28(a), (b), (c) & (d)
68.The provisions of Canada's Anti-Terrorism legislation amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to include a similar certification process. However, the review is done by a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal.
69. Section 32A(1)
70. Section 32A(3)
71. Section 34
72. Section 38
73. Section 39
74. Section 34
75. Section 42
76. Section 50
77. Section 57
78. These bodies are the existing Data Protection Commissioner and the existing Data Protection Tribunal created under the Data Protection Act, 1998 renamed
79. Section 45 and 46
80. Section 47(1) and (2)
81. Section 47(3)
82. Section 47(5)
83. Section 48
84. Section 52
85. Section 54
86. Sections 57 and 58
87. Section 59
