Hey, Canadian Judicial Council sleeping at the switch again are we?

Good Day Readers:

Since the Douglas Inquiry adjourned last July there has been precious little information made available as to what's happening. It was originally scheduled to reconvene last December but since then taxpayer updates have been virtually non-existant. Various parties to the proceedings subsequent to the recess filed Motions (5 or 6 in total) with the Federal Court of Canada some of which have slowly and painstakingly been adjudicated.

According to CyberSmokeBlog's calculations two remain. Taxpayer financed Team Block's Motion (Sheila Block, Toronto BigLaw Torys) to quash the proceedings on the basis of an apprehension of bias, as well as,   another to have struck from the record the masterful cross examination by Inquiry Counsel 'Gentleman' George Macintosh of two key witnesses (one of whom was lawyer 'Polaroid' Jack King married to Lori Douglas). Given the glacial speed with which the Inquiry is moving forward God only knows when they'll be forthcoming.

As a public service CSB is providing this update thanks to a reader who sent the following link:

http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/Douglas_Docs/FC%20Order
%20re%20interveners%202013-06-11.pdf

As you will see, it's the June 11, 2013 ruling by Federal Court of Canada Judge Madam Prothonotary Mireille Tabib to an application by the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association to stay the Douglas Inquiry proceedings until the CSCJA's Motion for intervenor standing had been heard. Since the decision is 18-pages, long story short it wasn't granted.

This Motion always struck CyberSmokeBlog as being a little strange because had standing been given wouldn't it have amounted to a conflict of interest?

CSB is on the CJC's mailing list for Press Releases. Search as it may it could not find one for the aforementioned ruling.

Interesting isn't it how often during the Inquiry Panel Members alluded to the notion of 'in the public interest' to which CyberSmokeBlog says, "Is keeping taxpayers under informed in the public interest?"

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk