Those are very good questions. I have a couple of responses.
I'll deal with your latter questions first. In terms of weighing down, given that this is a very significant decision being made in terms of an individual who's under the care of the state, I actually see within my organization—whether it rests with me or if I'm able to delegate it to my senior deputy commissioner—that it's the right level for these kinds of designations.
Again, based on our current numbers, I would see anywhere between 25 and just over 100 a year that could possibly be deemed to meet these criteria, and I think that warrants the most senior review within the organization, given that these people are under the state's care.
In terms of differentiating, I imagine, based on your previous career in terms of labour law, you would know when one side is bargaining in bad faith. It's just so evident to you. I've got over 34 years in corrections now, and a lot of my senior managers have many years as well. It's one of those things you can tell. At the end of the day, we're going to have to justify our decisions, because they could go to judicial review. They're going to have to be well documented, knowing that they could be subjected to judicial review, and we've got a lot of experience in that area in terms of the concept of duty to act fairly, the rule of law. So I feel comfortable that we're able to determine and distinguish frivolous and vexatious from a good grievance, for lack of a better word.