As I said, in the U.K. there is a tribunal system, and administrative tribunals are used across many areas of law. In the U.K., when it comes to freedom of information, data protection, cybersecurity or electronic marketing—all of those areas the commissioner is responsible for—the decisions that the commissioner fines and sanctions are subject to a review by the first-tier tribunal. Then the case can actually go to appeal at the second-tier tribunal, and then on to the court.
That sounds like what could be a very lengthy process. However, I think that over time the tribunals have become expert tribunals, so you're not taking a very specialist policy area like data protection and having a general court look at the issues.
I think there are pluses and minuses. Obviously, the government wants to make sure there is administrative fairness and an appeal system, because otherwise you have too much power concentrated in a government body.
You could understand why there should be appeals, but my argument is that, if there is going to be a tribunal, then the standard of review needs to be reasonableness, as it is in British Columbia. Also, the members of the tribunal need to be independent and appointed that way. Finally, I think it's really important that the tribunals not conduct an inquiry from scratch, because I think that undermines the commissioner's expertise.
If there is no tribunal, then I agree with the Privacy Commissioner's recommendation that an appeal go directly to the Federal Court of Appeal, rather than starting at the tribunal and then going to Federal Court.