One can imagine a time period in which the two findings would live simultaneously in conflict. You could have essentially a first-instance ruling. Like stare decisis, it's a path-dependent kind of approach to how one approaches particular types of activities in violations of the privacy law, which is then the prevailing standard upon which further violations are heard. You could in parallel have a ruling of a low court that comes to the conclusion that there's been a violation of privacy that's not in keeping with either the current practice of the Privacy Commissioner or potentially how the Privacy Commissioner may ultimately come to that conclusion. Until such time as there is an appeal or a future finding by the Privacy Commissioner, you live in a world of uncertainty.
What might happen is that the Privacy Commissioner gets a similar violation down the road and comes to the same conclusion he or she had previously and says, “Just for the record, I'm making it known to lower courts that this is how I continue to view the interpretation of the act and its applicability.” Or you could have someone appeal the lower court determination, and the Privacy Commissioner may or may not seek to try to influence the outcome of the appeal. The potential risk that's at play here is that, for a time period, you could have a period of certainty until such time as the Privacy Commissioner can recommit their views on a particular subject. Then you may very well have conflicting judgements. You could have a lower court that's made a determination that is at odds with the current interpretation as understood by the Privacy Commissioner.