First of all, I didn't do criminal cases; I did only civil cases. I was at the Federal Court, so I dealt mostly with judicial review, which is basically the process. It's about looking at the process and making sure that the process was properly followed, that people had the necessary jurisdiction and came to the necessary conclusions, and that the conclusions were reasonably defendable. That's really it. You don't redo the situation unless it's unreasonable.
It is very close to what we have here. In effect, here you have rules. You have a code. You have an act. You have a situation. What is illegal? Is this reasonable? Does it produce a reasonable end or not? You have to apply a certain amount of common sense.
Second, I think what you always keep in mind when you are a judge is not only the decision you make but the unintended consequences or side effects. I would be deciding this little issue, and that's clear, but having decided that, does it have secondary or tertiary effects, which can be very negative or which nobody has taken into account?
It was the same thing when I was commissioner of competition or chairman of the CRTC. We were always worried about the unintended consequences. It's the same thing here, too. I will deal with somebody's conflict, given the precedent, but I also want to keep in mind the unintended consequences, making sure that there are no unintended consequences or that, at least to the extent I can foresee them, they are acceptable.