The intention is to clarify for the litigants and all the parties, and for the court. It simply draws on legal precedent in stating the obvious. You may be correct, but it certainly makes it clearer to the parties.
I'm not going to die on a hill over this. I just thought I would put this on the record. I think Mr. Bigras is trying to raise a sincere concern. I understand there may be some difference with the Quebec situation, which of course is codified in the common law in the rest of Canada, and that may be where we're in a bit of a dilemma.