Later, in response to the question “If local police want to obtain information about a customer, what should happen?”, Perrin and Black confirm the intended meaning of “legal authority in § 7(3)(c.1): Under PIPEDA, telecommunications service providers (“TSPs”) cannot disclose “personal data” (including name, address and other information about an identifiable individual) without the knowledge or consent of the individual only in certain circumstances. One of these circumstances is when disclosure “to a state institution … who made a request for information, identified their legal authority to obtain the information and indicated it. (ii) disclosure for the purposes of. conduct an investigation in the context of the application of such a law [of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction] … (Emphasis added). 11.26. Some stakeholders considered that the defence should be considered fair, proportionate and/or necessary to limit excess of power. The UNSW cyberspace law and policy community argued that the defense was too “broad,” proposing to characterize it as “elements of transparency, necessity, justification, effectiveness, and proportionality.”  However, the ALRC considers that the only relevant question should be whether or not the driving was permitted by law. In some cases, the law authorizing the conduct will already be included in permissible matters such as whether the conduct was appropriate or necessary for it to be considered lawful. The legal authority to participate in any otherwise illegal conduct must be clearly expressed in unambiguous and unambiguous language. The insistence on the express authorization to suspend or restrict a fundamental right, freedom or immunity must be understood as a requirement for declaration or an indication that the legislator has not only focused its attention on the question of the abolition or restriction of these fundamental rights, freedoms and immunities, but has also determined their abolition or circumcision.  The organization can only comply with this request if the police can determine their legal authority to obtain the information, which essentially means that it is information that the individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy under section 8 of the Charter.
(p.165; Emphasis added). s. 7 Paragraph 3 states that information may only be provided without consent if the entity requesting the information has “indicated its legal authority to obtain the information” and has indicated that disclosure (in this case) is requested for law enforcement purposes. The law does not stipulate that the existence of a criminal investigation is in itself a “legal authority” within the meaning of the law, nor does a “letter requesting account information in connection with an investigation into the sexual exploitation of children” establish such an authority. Therefore, there must always be a “legal authority” to obtain the information; According to the Court, Article 7(3)(3)(.c(ii) does not in itself determine what that `legal authority` is. 11.14 AFP stated that its activities were already subject to a number of existing internal and independent “accountability frameworks”.  However, the ALRC considers it appropriate for legal advocacy to grant civil remedies to individuals whose privacy has been violated if an organization is acting outside of a legal authority.  10.10 The analogous defence of the legal authority against intentional tort protects individuals and authorities from civil actions in which a defendant`s conduct was committed in order to prevent and detect crimes; in the exercise of powers of arrest; and in the provision of public services and public services.
 11.8 Statutory agencies whose roles and responsibilities are prescribed by state, territorial and federal laws include government agencies and departments, security and intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies. This defense is necessary to protect organizations from civil liability for engaging in legitimate activities under legal powers, such as law enforcement agencies. B intercept telephone conversations on the basis of an arrest warrant. 11.31 While this provision may be unnecessary in the defence of lawful authority, it could be amended by adding a reference to serious privacy measures. While the objection that the conduct has been approved or required by law should provide sufficient protection for the approved activities, consequential amendments to section 57 of the Archives Act may provide more security and consistency. Therefore, if a police request for information is not consistent with the Charter, e.B because there are insufficient grounds to suspect that the information requested has something to do with criminal misconduct, or because the information requested raises a reasonable expectation of privacy, the TSP does not have the right under section 7(3)(c.1) to disclose the information. .