|
|
Perfect…
The hearing got off to a rocky start for the CHRC lawyer, Ms. Blight. The Chairman, Mr. Hadjis, had received a list of questions from Ms. Blight that the CHRC had refused to answer in the previous hearing, citing Section 37 of the Evidence Act. It was her intention to try to limit the questions that were asked in this hearing to only the questions that had been asked before and refused. The problem with the document she sent to Mr. Hadjis is that she had helpfully included the answers she expected the witnesses to give! connie fournier, no apologies
Leave a Reply
|
|
March 27th, 2008 at 4:57 am
Again, you folks place the most sinister (dexter?) constructions on the mundane. These answers appeared in a document actually submitted to the Tribunal! Blight was trying to indicate what the responses to the questions were likely to be. If strong-arming the witnesses was her aim (as is implied), why on earth would she telegraph all that to the presiding Tribunal member?
March 27th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Kinda like the “sinister constructions on the mundane” you wrote about meeting Mark Steyn huh?
Pfffttt
Pot-kettle-black
Boring and insincere AU
Did you leave your card with her?...I bet the CHRC will be looking for a good apologist in the very near future.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Hey, Dr. Dawg! Good to see you again, my friend! :-)
It seemed to me Mr. Hadjis wasn’t amused about the answers being included. He cared enough to bring it up, anyhow, and that was around the time Ms Blight’s face took on that crimson hue that remained for the rest of the day.