The arguments are misleading, because this is not mediation. When you look at the process at proposed subsection 85.06(1), the end result is a legally binding order, just like in a court or in any tribunal that issues a regular binding decision.
Mediation is, of course, confidential. There is nothing wrong with that, but once a legally binding decision has been issued, it is subject to the open court principle that is subject to section 2(b) of the charter and, as the bill currently stands, it does, in our view, violate section 2(b) of the charter. It violates freedom of expression. It violates freedom of the press. It creates a secretive process where a binding decision is issued without the media and the public being able to scrutinize how the decision was made, what evidence it was based on and what the reasons for that decision were.
This is unprecedented in consumer disputes.