I would like to make the point that it's my understanding that Juroviesky and Ricci, with their sublegal counsel, intends to enter the court next week. They're going to raise the issue that there are retail owners who are being asked to vote yes, and to waive their legal rights. So they will bring it to the court.
I'm not a lawyer and I haven't seen their documentation. I have prepared my own affidavit with respect to what happened. But I would surmise that they're going to make a case that this vote cannot proceed, as it's a miscarriage of justice for the retail customer group, on the basis of the evidence and the reasonable causes of action they have to seek remedy.
Obviously we have a judge who is managing the CCAA process, but it would be my objective that all eyes be on the CCAA judicial process, because there is nothing in the law, in the CCAA act in and of itself, in my opinion, that has obliged the pan-Canadian group to go into a proceeding that requires everyone to waive their legal rights.
If institutions are prepared to do so, and have negotiated such with the international banks who have the right to call default, then so be it; let them proceed to vote and to waive their rights. But in the interest of the country, the economy, and in not having a miscarriage of justice and this stumbling into a public policy issue about justice, we would like to see the assistance of the Government of Canada with whatever mechanism they have to persuade reasonable thought to be brought to bear on this so that these families are not squashed. If they are squashed, we will have a public opinion crisis on our hands, because Canadians will have had their life savings stripped and their rights to sue removed.
So we have a very, very significant adverse situation.
