<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Queen’s Bench Follows Business Watch rather than Kellogg, Brown and Root Regarding Jurisdiction of Privacy Commissioner</title>
	<link>http://ablawg.ca/2009/06/16/queen%e2%80%99s-bench-follows-business-watch-rather-than-kellogg-brown-and-root-regarding-jurisdiction-of-privacy-commissioner/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 19:42:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: ABlawg.ca &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Further Developments in the Cassels FOIPPA Matter</title>
		<link>http://ablawg.ca/2009/06/16/queen%e2%80%99s-bench-follows-business-watch-rather-than-kellogg-brown-and-root-regarding-jurisdiction-of-privacy-commissioner/#comment-76921</link>
		<dc:creator>ABlawg.ca &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Further Developments in the Cassels FOIPPA Matter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:37:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://ablawg.ca/2009/06/16/queen%e2%80%99s-bench-follows-business-watch-rather-than-kellogg-brown-and-root-regarding-jurisdiction-of-privacy-commissioner/#comment-76921</guid>
		<description>[...] the OIPC did not lose jurisdiction to issue the order despite the delays (see 2009 ABQB 268 and my earlier post on this [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] the OIPC did not lose jurisdiction to issue the order despite the delays (see 2009 ABQB 268 and my earlier post on this [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

