The order-making power extends both to the access to information and privacy protection provisions.
In relation to access to information, if someone who has sought access to information is denied access or a fee is imposed that they believe is unjustified, or if there's another inappropriate action by the public body, they can appeal to us. It's called a request for review. We mediate settlement in about 85% to 90% of the cases, depending on which year you're looking at. If the matter doesn't settle, we send it to a formal hearing, which is done in writing. I then have the ability to make findings of fact and law, based on evidence, and essentially arrive at a decision on whether there should be more access granted or whether the public body was justified in denying access, based on the provisions of the law. I then can order the public body to disclose more information and I can order it to reconsider its decision; I can uphold its decision, and in some cases I do a bit of both: partially upheld on certain exemptions, or entirely on some exemptions, and perhaps ordered to disclose more information in other parts of the request or the actual appeal. That order is binding, and must be complied with, subject only to judicial review.
So, really, it's a full de novo review of the decision of the public body with that binding order to compel the public body to do what is set out in the order.