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
Written by jay on March 27th, 2008 with
3 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and blogging and law.
- [+] Digg: Feature this article
- [+] Del.icio.us: Bookmark this article
- [+] Furl: Bookmark this article
#1. 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?