So all those judges are trained in civil law. Their careers have been in civil law.
The argument is about section 6 of the Supreme Court Act. How can it be that a judge with 20 years of experience in civil law follow by another 20 years of experience as a sitting judge, with 40 years of experience in total, cannot be qualified for a position as a Supreme Court judge?
I am sure you are aware of the opinion written by Justice Binnie, which Justice Charron concurred in, as did Peter Hogg, one of our great constitutional scholars. I take nothing away from you; you are in the same category. However, I have difficulty understanding how a person with so much experience as a lawyer and a judge can fail to meet the criteria in the act.