Okay. I'll read out a couple of components. The actus reus of the offence of obstructing justice is that the act has the tendency “to defeat or obstruct the course of justice.” The mens rea is a specific, deliberate intent to do the act that would result in the obstruction of justice. Success is not necessary. “The offence is made out even if the accused fails to succeed or fails to complete the attempt to commit the offence.” Pursuant to another decision, Regina v. Watson from the Ontario Superior Court, it is no defence that the actions were an error in judgment or a mistake.
With the evidence that you did receive, which largely consisted of the ethics committee report and the testimony of Jody Wilson-Raybould, was there an impediment of the actus reus or the mens rea to obstruction of justice?