Date:19 Janvier 2004

The CCLA, in general, opposes the filing of the Supplemental Affidavit on the grounds that while the transcripts meet the low thresholds for relevance, portions are not admissible and it would not be in the interests of justice to admit them. [...] However, they object to the admission of the remainder of Exhibit “C” which includes evidence of how the Commissioner’s testimony would not have changed the Minister’s view of the necessity of invoking the Emergencies Act on the ground that it is hypothetical in nature and goes to the Page: 7 merits of the matter decided by the decision maker. [...] With regard to the Prime Minister’s testimony before the POEC, in CCLA 2023 the Court granted leave for the admission of three pages of that evidence on the limited basis that they were necessary background context to explain the development and use of the Invocation Memorandum. [...] The testimony which the Respondent now seeks to have admitted expands on the reasons why the Prime Minister chose to accept the advice in the Memorandum and invoke the Emergencies Act. [...] I agree that for the most part the excerpts explain the Prime Minister’s preoccupations at the time of the events, which led to the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act.