There's a couple of things. First let's deal with the issue. If the issue arises and it's at variance with the law, such as on lending practices, we then open a case and do an investigation. We can hold the institution accountable by due process. We issue a notice of violation, and the institution then gets a certain amount of time in which it can respond. I then take its response and the initial reports and make a decision, like an administrative tribunal, on the case. That's one.
Now, in a number of instances it is shown that there is no at variance with the law, but--and this is key, in my mind--the individual may still face redress issues. So they will go through a redress ombuds issue with that institution, or they can seek legal restitution. I don't deal with that.
The third factor--and we had a case lately that we've followed up on--is that under section 17 of the act, the individual consumer will be frustrated that, often, like the Competition Bureau, we're to deal with the regulatory issue, not the redress issue. Therefore, sometimes they would like to see their file, and under section 17 of the act, I cannot just hand over a file that's been developed on this issue.
Bear with me, this is difficult.
But hope springs eternal. I advise the consumer that they can apply under access to information for their file. There are privacy laws and safeguards built in, but the access to information can often result in them getting their full file.