<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Case Report &#8211; Strong words on employers&#8217; interest in controlling employee computer use by the Alberta C.A.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://danmichaluk.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/case-report-strong-words-on-employers-interest-in-controlling-employee-computer-use-by-the-alberta-c-a/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://danmichaluk.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/case-report-strong-words-on-employers-interest-in-controlling-employee-computer-use-by-the-alberta-c-a/</link>
	<description>A legal blog about the law of information - By Toronto, Ontario lawyer Dan Michaluk</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 02:57:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Information Roundup &#8211; 5 July 2009 &#171; All About Information</title>
		<link>http://danmichaluk.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/case-report-strong-words-on-employers-interest-in-controlling-employee-computer-use-by-the-alberta-c-a/#comment-1445</link>
		<dc:creator>Information Roundup &#8211; 5 July 2009 &#171; All About Information</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:46:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://danmichaluk.wordpress.com/?p=2145#comment-1445</guid>
		<description>[...] how value-laden these e-mail judgements are. Try reading the Alberta Court of Appeal&#8217;s recent Poliquin decision and Stengart back-to-back and you&#8217;ll see what I mean. This is not good in my view. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] how value-laden these e-mail judgements are. Try reading the Alberta Court of Appeal&#8217;s recent Poliquin decision and Stengart back-to-back and you&#8217;ll see what I mean. This is not good in my view. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
